Guess Who’s Still Working At The Defense Department
This is starting to sound like the Seinfeld episode where George was fired but showed up for work and did his job anyway:
Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has left the Pentagon, but not the Defense Department.On Jan. 4, Mr. Rumsfeld opened a government-provided transition office in Arlington and has seven Pentagon-paid staffers working for him, a Pentagon official said.
The Pentagon lists Mr. Rumsfeld as a “nonpaid consultant,” a status he needs in order to review secret and top-secret documents, the official said.
Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides, who include close adviser Stephen Cambone, are sifting through the thousands of pages of documents generated during his tenure.
The Pentagon official said former secretaries are entitled to a transition office to sort papers, some of which can be taken with them for a library, for archives or to write a book.
The transition office has raised some eyebrows inside the Pentagon. Some question the size of the staff, which includes two military officers and two enlisted men. They also ask why the sorting could not have been done from the time Mr. Rumsfeld resigned Nov. 8 to when he left the building Dec. 18.
The Pentagon official, who asked not to be named, said Mr. Rumsfeld served nearly six years as secretary, more than any other defense chief but one, meaning he accumulated an above-average pile of paper.
Goodness gracious…
15 Responses to “Guess Who’s Still Working At The Defense Department”
Well, what do those Moonies at the Washington Times know…
I guess it’s only a horribly biased right-wing hatchet job of a paper when it’s reporting stories about Democrats?
It’s always nice to see how the other side views an issue and HMV’s well thought out, topical and insightful opinion has once again added greatly to the knowledge base.
You forgot the *end snark*
Sigh… Steve, I was not making a substantive response to the story, because it’s a total non-story, with a few political opponents of the former Secretary who still work there making anonymous complaints about him (“some sources”). There’s no indication that he is running the show, a power behind the throne. He’s spending time, unpaid, going through his papers to get them in better order for all the historians who will be looking through them one day.
My point (and I suspect most people got it) was that the last time TMV cited a story (the Obama research done by the Clinton campaign) from the Washington Times (well, its sister publication, Insight), many commenters jumped to attack it, citing its ultimate ownership by the Rev. Moon and its reputed right-wing bias. Now, they have a piece critical of a Republican, and no mention of “unsourced comments” and the like. Yes, the raw fact of Rumsfeld having the office may be properly sourced, but the innuendo and criticism and suggestions of some vague impropriety are not at all sourced (“some said”).
The source in this is clearly someone from the Pentagon. Unlike some, I don’t believe (having been a journalist0 that most journalists “make up” a source. They may use a source who uses the journalist. DR wasn’t Mr. Popularity at the Pentagon so someone went to the WT to let them know that he hasn’t really totally cleared out his desk but is there in another capacity. There wasn’t much for me to say on this story…but it is an interesting one. And the “goodness gracious” is one of may really endearing phrases from past generations that DR would use. I don’t see the posting of this story or the few comments I made about it as some huge analysis or policy statement on my part or the site’s part or reflecting all of the many writers of different opinions who write on this site. It is simply…an…interesting…news…story. And not from a totally “blind” source since we know it is from someone at the Pentagon. (Unless you believe the journalist just sits in his office, slips a slurpee and writes a story by making up a source and not calling anyone…and that is not how it works). Unnamed sources often give good info but they have a variety of reasons for giving it.
Joe, you’re certainly not responsible for the statements of the commenters on this site, or your co-bloggers. But in Michael Sticking’s last post on the Obama story, he strongly suggested that the Washington Times was flat-out lying about its sources:
and
You yourself, Joe, in your original post on the subject, suggested that Insight was perhaps being used or otherwise misleading the public about its sources for the story:
You also said:
You also seemed to me to clearly suggest that Insight itself was being deceitful:
That reads as sarcasm to me, which is confirmed by your later statement: “This source sounds like it is not a Democratic source“, despite Insight’s clear statement “An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered… Sources close to the background check…”
I really have no objection to your story on Rumsfeld hanging around. As you say, it’s an interesting new story, and from your comment, I sense you agree with me that all in all it’s a relatively minor one.
I only intended my initial post to be a snarky little observation that in describing the Washington Times when they ran a story you found inappropriate, you (and co-bloggers and commenters) were deeply suspicious of them and emphasized their conservative sympathies, while when they run a story which you find appropriate or amusing, they’re just another news source. My snark was mostly aimed at the attacks on the Washington Times in the prior posts.
Well, there was no doubt that who ever the source was that originated the Madrassa story had some incentive to speak against Obama… and that is pretty much what Joe (I think) was getting at when he spoke of sources having their own motives for releasing information…
While we are talking about the Madrassa thing… How about that Fox News anchor?
And this story… a nonstarter if I ever saw one…
The transition office has raised some eyebrows inside the pentagon.
Hah……….Democratic, I hate Rumsfeld Eyebrows……….lol
I like your website I will share this with friends
This is such a wonderful and informative way to reach others. I Will be more than glad to share this site
Sehr informative Seite. Vielen Dank für die Infos!
VERY GOOD WEBSITE!I LIKE IT.
What a great web site…
Super site darlings. Thanks awfully
I like your website I will share this with friends