"Hold 'em, Yale" is one of the best
short stories of Guys and Dolls creator Damon Runyon, who depicted the
New York City underworld in the 1920s. The story deals with an undercover operation
to scalp ducats before the annual Yale-Harvard football game. It begins:
"What I am doing in New Haven on the day of a very large football game
between the Harvards and the Yales is something calling for no little explanation,
for I am not such a guy as you are likely to find in New Haven at any time –
and especially not on the day of a large football game."
A variant came to mind Thursday as I walked through a posh Atlanta neighborhood
to the Southern Center for International Policy to hear a speech by Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"What I am doing in Atlanta on the day of a very large lecture by Donald
Rumsfeld to an establishment audience is something calling for no little explanation,
for I am not such a guy as you are likely to find in such a venue at any time
– and especially not when the ducat requires $40 up front."
But serendipity prevailed. The ACLU of Georgia had invited me to their annual
dinner on Thursday, May 4, to receive the National Civil Liberties Award. Friends
in Atlanta arranged for me to bookend my remarks at the ACLU dinner with a Wednesday
presentation to Pax Christi, the Catholic peace movement, and a talk on Friday
evening at Quaker House in Decatur. I planned to put the rationale for looming
war with Iran in context by drawing an unhappy but direct parallel with the
bogus reasons adduced to "justify" the U.S. attack on Iraq more than
three years ago.
When those friends learned last Monday that Rumsfeld would be in Atlanta Thursday
to give an afternoon speech at the Center, it seemed a natural to go. The event
was said to be open to the public, but it took tradecraft skills assimilated
over a 27-year career with the CIA to acquire a ticket. (The event was strangely
absent from the Center's Web site, reportedly at the insistence of the Defense
The fact that my presence there was pure coincidence turned out to be a huge
disappointment for those who began interviews later that day by insisting I
tell them why I had stalked Rumsfeld all the way from Washington to Atlanta.
Especially people like Paula Zahn, who asked me on Thursday evening "what kind
of ax" I had to grind with him.
To prepare for my presentations, I took along a briefcase full of notes and
clippings, one of which was a New York Times article datelined Atlanta,
Sept. 27, 2002, quoting Rumsfeld's assertion that there was "bulletproof"
evidence of ties between al-Qaeda and the government of Saddam Hussein.
This was the kind of unfounded allegation that, at the time, deceived 69 percent
of Americans into believing that the Iraqi leader played a role in the tragedy
of 9/11. Rumsfeld's "bulletproof" rhetoric also came in the wake of
an intensive but quixotic search by my former colleagues at the CIA for any
reliable evidence of such ties.
A fresh reminder of the Bush administration's Iraq deceptions surfaced Thursday
morning, when the Spanish newspaper El Pais published an interview
with Paul Pillar, the senior U.S. intelligence specialist on the Middle East
and terrorism until he retired late last year. Pillar branded administration
attempts to prove a link between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein "an organized
campaign of manipulation … I suppose by some definitions that could be called
I arrived at the Rumsfeld lecture early, took a seat near a microphone set
aside for Q-and-A, and thought I might ask Rumsfeld to explain his use of the
"bulletproof" adjective, which came at a time when none other than
Gen. Brent Scowcroft was describing such evidence as "scant," and
the CIA was saying it was nonexistent. (The 9/11 commission later ruled definitively
in CIA's favor.)
Rumsfeld brought up bête noire terrorist Zarqawi as proof of collaboration
between al-Qaeda and Iraq, but that was a canard easily knocked down. It appears
that Rumsfeld thinks no one really pays attention. Sadly, as regards the mainstream
press, he has been largely right – at least until now.
When Rumsfeld broadened our dialogue to include the never-to-be-found Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction, saying, "Apparently, there were no weapons
of mass destruction," I could not resist reminding him that he had claimed
he actually knew where they were. Anyone who followed this issue closely would
remember his remark to George Stephanopoulos on March 30, 2003:
"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad
and east, west, south, and north somewhat."
As soon as the event was over, CNN asked me for my sources, which I was happy
to share. The CNN folks seemed a bit surprised that they all checked out. To
their credit, they overcame the more customary "McGovern said this, but
Rumsfeld said that" – and the dismissive "well, we'll have to leave
it there" – kind of treatment. In Rumsfeldian parlance, what I had said turned
out to be "known knowns," even though he provided an altered version
on Thursday of his "we know where they are." Better still, in its
coverage, CNN quoted what Rumsfeld had said in 2003.
That evening a friend e-mailed me about a call she got from a close associate
in "upper management at CNN" to ask about me. She quoted the CNN manager:
"We checked and double-checked everything this guy had to say, and he was
100 percent accurate." He then asked if those protesting the war "were
getting organized or something." She responded, "Indeed we are and
have been for some time, and it's about time the mainstream media caught up."
With the exception of CNN – and MSNBC which also did its homework and displayed
the tangled web woven by the normally articulate defense secretary – the other
networks generally limited their coverage to the "he-said-but-he-said"
coverage more typical of what passes for journalism these days. Even CNN found
it de rigueur to put neocon ideologue Frank Gaffney on with me for
Wolf Blitzer. Gaffney is well to the right of Rumsfeld, so I should not have
been surprised to hear Gaffney take the line that the U.S. may still find evidence
of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Hope springs eternal.
And there were more subliminal messages. In some press reports I was described
as a "Rumsfeld critic" and "heckler" who was, heavens, "rude
to Rumsfeld." Other accounts referred to my "alleged" service
with the CIA, which prompted my wife to question – I think in jest – what I
was really doing for those 27 years. I believe I was able to convince her without
her performing additional fact-checking.
All in all, my encounter with Rumsfeld was for me a highly instructive experience.
The Center's president, Peter White, singled out Rumsfeld's "honesty"
in introducing him, and 99 percent of those attending seemed primed to agree.
Indeed, their reaction brought to mind film footage of rallies in Germany during
the '30s. When Rumsfeld
replied to my first question about his false statements on Iraq 's WMD,
the applause was automatic. "I did not lie then," he insisted.
This was immediately greeted with what Pravda used to describe as
"stormy applause," followed immediately by rather unseemly shouts
by this otherwise well-disciplined and well-heeled group to have me summarily
thrown out. At the end, as we all filed out slowly, I could make eye contact
with only one person – who proceeded to berate me for being insubordinate.
Scary. No open minds there. A graphic reminder for those wishing to spread
some truth around that we have our work cut out for us. We have to find imaginative
ways to use truth as a lever to pry open closed minds.
This piece originally appeared on TomPaine.com.