And today, Wednesday Oct 8th, in the NYT - with the same FT/Spiegel byline - @ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/business/FT1059480409515.html

 

Also, Washington Post @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58726-2003Oct7.html

 

Very interesting.  Rummy may have become more of a media star than was good for him.  Or maybe the letters pouring in for his dismissal have added up to some concern about ‘damage control’.  - KWC

 

 

Hi, Keith,

What is your source on the Rice move being done without Rummy's knowledge? That seems highly unlikely to me...Lawry:

It was from the following article in the Financial Times (UK).  Also posted at the Common Dreams website.  B.

Published on Tuesday, October 7, 2003 by the Financial Times/UK

Rumsfeld 'Not Told' of Postwar Shake-Up

by Peter Spiegel in Colorado Springs

 

Donald Rumsfeld, US defense secretary, said on Tuesday he had not been told by President George W. Bush or the National Security Council that the White House was to restructure the handling of postwar Iraq before the media were briefed on the plan by NSC officials.

Mr Bush has ordered the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by Condoleezza Rice who is head of the NSC, which co-ordinates foreign policy in the White House.

In an interview with the Financial Times and three European news organizations, Mr Rumsfeld insisted that the new NSC role appeared to be no different from the policy-co-ordinating structure that had existed for more than a year.

He said he did not know why Ms Rice, Mr Bush's national security adviser, had felt it necessary to send a memorandum about the new organization to cabinet officials or brief the New York Times about the move.

"That's what the NSC's charter is," Mr Rumsfeld said. "The only thing unusual about it is the attention. I kind of wish they'd just release the memorandum."

Mr Bush on Monday welcomed the new organization, saying: "Condi's job, and Condi's team is going to make sure that the efforts are continued to be co-ordinated."

Mr Rumsfeld declined to comment on the perception that the move was an attempt by the White House to strip control of the rebuilding from the tight grip of the Pentagon. He sought to portray it as a reiteration of existing policy and seemed perturbed that Ms Rice had decided to draw attention to the memo by "backgrounding" the media.

"I don't know quite what the purpose of the backgrounding was . . . she gave a background, she said what she said, and the way I read the memorandum is that it is basically what the responsibility of the NSC is and always has been, which is what's been going on," he said.

Mr Rumsfeld added: "My impression of it is that that is what is the charter of the National Security Council, and I haven't been able to detect any difference from the memo - unfortunately it's a classified memo, it shouldn't be, there's nothing in it that's classified."

Mr Rumsfeld said he was not upset that he had not been told about Ms Rice's memo beforehand. Senior administration officials frequently produced such policy memorandums and distributed them to "principals" without informing them the missive was being produced.

But people close to the Pentagon said on Tuesday that Mr Rumsfeld's account appeared to be at odds with that of Ms Rice who told the New York Times that she had devised the new structure with Mr Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, the secretary of state, and Dick Cheney, the vice-president.

Before issuing her memo, Ms Rice had been criticized for giving the Pentagon too much control in Iraq.Paul Bremer, civilian administrator, and General John Abizaid, chief military commander, report to Mr Rumsfeld.

© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2003

###

Send this page to a friend

 

 

 

 FAIR USE NOTICE

 

 

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such

 

 

 

<<image001.gif>>

Reply via email to