Donald Rumsfeld, Al Jazeera's Abderrahim Foukara Have Incredibly Contentious Interview (VIDEO)

On the same day that he praised Al Jazeera, former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld had an incredibly contentious interview with the network. (Watch video above.)

Rumsfeld made news in late September by talking to Al Jazeera's David Frost and saying that he was "delighted" by the network's success. (This was quite the reversal for Rumsfeld, who had called Al Jazeera's Arabic network "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable" during his tenure.) However, an interview with Al Jazeera English Washington bureau chief Abderrahim Foukara was filmed on the same day as the Frost interview. The conversation with Foukara did not air until Tuesday, and was an entirely different animal from Rumsfeld's friendlier talk with Frost.

Foukara asked Rumsfeld about, among other things, the Iraq war. He was very direct with his subject, asking straight out if he felt any responsibility for the deaths of innocent Iraqis because, in his words, the Bush administration "didn't secure the borders" of the country and sent in too few troops. Rumsfeld dismissed this suggestion.

"You keep making assertions that are fundamentally false," he said. "Correct me," Foukara replied. Rumsfeld insisted that all of the troop levels had been highly vetted on multiple levels. "Does that make the numbers right?" Foukara interjected.

"Do you want to yell or do you want an interview?" Rumsfeld shot back. "I'm having an interview, and I'm actually enjoying this interview," Foukara said, almost cheerfully. "You have a choice," Rumsfeld said. "You're being true to form."

Foukara attempted to ask his question again. He wondered if Rumsfeld felt responsibility felt responsibility for "tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis killed by the coalition," as well as by the "criminals" who Rumsfeld had blamed for much of the violence in the country. Rumsfeld didn't even attempt to answer the question. He accused Foukara of asking him "pejorative" questions, and told him he though it was in his "being" and "nature" to be disrespectful."

"This is not about me," Foukara said. "If you want to attack me personally, fine, but give me the answer to the question."

"Why should I do everything you want and you won't do anything I want?" Rumsfeld asked. "Because I'm the interviewer!" Foukara said.

Rumsfeld ultimately called the whole thing "worthless."

Comments

[mu chowdhury]

03:02 AM on 10/08/2011

The 180 degree turn regarding Al Jazeera by Donald Rumsfeld - the lier !! Look ! Who speaks!!!!

[Mikeeee]

10:25 PM on 10/07/2011

I have to agree with rummy. It was worthless. It's always going to be worthless talking to anyone from bushco if you're seeking the the truth.

[titoCA321]

10:00 PM on 10/07/2011

How do we know this was not scripted between the two?

Rumsfeld will sell more books out of this. Al-Jazzera will get more ratings. I am the loser for wasn't my time watching this. Maybe the whole thing was scripted.

[KevinGregg]

01:59 PM on 10/15/2011

Oh please. How could that have been scripted? Are you nuts? That's like someone thinking that what you just said and what I am replying to you right now is scripted. Imagine someone thinking that. That would be a very silly person indeed.

(Did I get my lines right?)

[Wolf Klauschie]

08:56 PM on 10/06/2011

Wow. Just wow. Did Rumsfeld even hear anything that Foukara was saying, or was he just responding to what he expected him to say?

[marluz]

01:29 PM on 10/06/2011

Didn't he say that the war in Iraq would last 6 days, 6 weeks, I doubt, 6 months? Didn't he say that the oil in Iraq would pay for the war? Didn't the Bush administration say that the Iraqis will greet our soldiers with flowers? Didn't Mitch Daniels peg the cost of the Iraqi war at 50 to 60 billion dollars? As of 2006 it reached ONE TRILLION dollars!

[mu chowdhury]

03:23 AM on 10/08/2011

No mention please !! Its a trillion only. As the Golfbushco is happy with it, 535-strength congress representing US, is living with it, why not you? Just think it as a trivial collateral damage accompanying a holy job, keeping aside the half a million innocent unarmed deadbodies and the grounding of an ageold civilization. Rummy was then a secretary of pilgrimage !!

[DeWain]

12:26 PM on 10/06/2011

The vicarious, hypocritical, ego entertainment, which Americans prefer over substance, is demonstrated in this short, specially selected, portion of an alledged interview. What I saw was an amazingly arrogant interviewer, harrassing a person who actually had to make impossible decisions under fire, without regard to courtesy or respect of any kind. Rude beyond the pale. It is genuinely refreshing to have heard Rumsfeld curtail the assault and to try to get past the hostile facade of the interrogator to a human conversation.

For example: Rumsfeld: "...and the value they put on human life is very different from the value Americans put on it."
Interviewer: "We are not talking about Americans, we are talking about the Bush administration."

[livesimply]

01:53 PM on 10/06/2011

Rumsfeld's statement is only true if you CHOOSE to believe it. As the interviewer said; there were many innocent Iraqis killed as a result of what the administration did. So you must mean that American lives have more value as Rumsfeld obviously does. Sounds a lot like the Spanish conquistadors and their attitude towards the native Americans whose land and gold they killed for. There was substance in the questions, but Rumsfeld did nothing but attack him. I thought he was very gracious considering how Rumsfeld attacked HIM.

[DeWain]

03:01 PM on 10/06/2011

livesimply

You too could think of a scenario in which Rumsfeld's statement was true, and of an instance where American lives were more valuable, in effect, than others.

Yes, there was substance in the questions, while also being subjectively loaded with inappropriate damnations.

As for who attacked who and who was gracious, we will probably not find common ground there. To me, the reporter was ineffective and arrogant, without merit.

The reporter did behave in the manner oddly enjoyed by many Americans, with an anti-American pro-Islamic agenda. I find it conterproductive to long term survival for the free America preferred by the rest.

[balrog221]

11:51 AM on 10/06/2011

The great thing about 20-20 hindsight is that you can see it clearly and start to correct your errors. The bad thing is that Rumsfeld and his Ilk don't want you to open your eyes to see the truth. they try to blur your vision.

[Freedomaphile]

11:16 AM on 10/06/2011

I read Huffpost for an hour or two every day.

This has been up for two days (judging from the comments) how did I miss it.

This happens to me constantly.

Is there some kind of early edition I am not privy to?

[livesimply]

11:03 AM on 10/06/2011

What a bully Rumsfield is... He can not answer a simple question. He can only criticize the interviewer. He thinks he can "wave the flag" against an Arab and everyone will listen to his sheer BS.

[marluz]

01:30 PM on 10/06/2011

He is so cocky! I cannot stand him!

[elisevil]

06:12 AM on 10/07/2011

I wish it was simply a question of 'could' he answer it. I truly believe that he went on the attack to filibuster the hard questions with full knowlegde of his complicity in that crime. He has muddied the waters and most viewers would have forgotten the simplicity of the question that was spoken at a moderate volume; "Was it right to risk so many (brownish skinned) souls to invade on the cheap?" (my paraphrase, though an unprovoked invasion of any size would surely be criminal)

Did the impossibility of answering it without opening himself up to a higher likelihood of someday's War Crimes charges, force his ridiculous verbal counterattack?

[scottymac11]

10:56 AM on 10/06/2011

Disgusting. Rummy is rude condescending and insultingly uncooperative. He would have helped himself better if he had said " I just won't answer that question ". But no. He had to attempt to bully his way through the non interview he was giving. He had to do the interview the neo-con way.

[marluz]

01:31 PM on 10/06/2011

Just like a Republican, they are never wrong! F&F!

[elisevil]

06:18 AM on 10/07/2011

But to deeply bury the crime, he must also make people forget the question. We are being trained to have the focus and memory of a puppy.

So now, people will remember and respect him for granting Al Jazeera an interview and that it was argumentative, but they/we won't necessarily remember what question set him off. It's all a mind control game, and we are still being conned.

[balrog221]

10:52 AM on 10/06/2011

I can only hope that future military planners will acknowledge the obvious failure of the Iraqi adventure.... and that we never ever repeat them!

[swancj]

07:31 AM on 10/06/2011

It could be a PSA for identifying rich white male entitlement. How dare you ask him a question he doesn't like - the media are no longer a function of democracy - the media are the minions of corporate overlords who maintain the facade for folks like Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld and his ilk have never ever made a single mistake ever in their lives. Maybe its a test/game 'spot the arrogance'.

[Freedomaphile]

11:11 AM on 10/06/2011

Consider the Palin/Bachmann reaction to "gotcha questions", I don't think this is necessarily a make entitlement.

[swancj]

09:12 PM on 10/07/2011

I don't know. The Palin Bachmann reaction is often delayed. The are usually momentarily [at the least] deer in the headlights before going on the attack. When you consider some of his other statements that reveal a decided bigotry against Arabs I think the case for entitlement is strong.

[marluz]

01:35 PM on 10/06/2011

I wonder if he ever thinks of all the young men and women who lost their lives because of him and the Bush administration? Then again, do Republicans have a conscience? I doubt it, just as he doubted the war in Iraq wouldn't last 6 months. F&F!

[DanoX]

04:26 AM on 10/06/2011

"..troop levels had been highly vetted on multiple levels" If by this he means he fired every general who disagreed with him openly about the low troop levels, then yes troop levels were highly vetted.

[BaghdadBandit]

02:27 PM on 10/09/2011

Rumsfeld had the Gs in line after the Shinseki sack. Sun Tzu Art of War tactics. It Goes -The King (POTUS) could not control his Concubines (Gs). They didn't listen and they were a rabble bunch. He asked his best military commander (DR) to get them under control. The Commander asked assurances from the King that he could do what needed to be done to get the Concubines in step. The King agreed. The Commander asked all the Concubines out into the field for Marching Drills. The Commander stated for all Concubines to hear, "when I bang this drum, you will march together in step to the beat of this drum". He began to bang the drum and the Concubines giggled and scrambled around in the disorder that the King had exclaimed. The Commander asked for the King's favorite concubine come forward to the top of the steps (Shinseki). He wielded his sword from his belt in a flash whacked of the beautiful head of this girl and it rolled to the front row of the stunned Concubines. Spurting the arterial blood into the crowd of women. After a moment, the Commander said "when I bang this drum, you will march together in step to the beat of the drum". He banged the drums again and the Concubines marched like Von Stueben had trained them himself. The second time the troop levels drum was banged, Our Generals marched off in step to the beat of "lower troop levels".

[ocenbrz]

04:00 AM on 10/06/2011

"worthless". The same thing I think about Rumsfeld. "You go to war with the army you have. Not the army you wish you had." He said something like that and it just made me ill. This man is a traitor. To our Country and to all of our soldiers who were unfortunate enough to have had to serve in our Military under his unworthy command. Getting rid of him was the best move Bush ever made during his years as President.

[balrog221]

10:53 AM on 10/06/2011

and waiting too long to get rid of him was one of the worst

[GaryNOVA]

03:41 AM on 10/06/2011

my first question to rumzfeld would be "So, have you destroyed any more countries lately?"