On the 27th of this month I provided a link to a blog entry on the Lew Rockwell website. The link was titled - 'Rumsfeld -- laws don't apply to me!' and the entry was made by Wendy McElroy. On the following day a reader emailed me with a question and a copy of an email he'd sent to Wendy McElroy - that email follows:

just saw you included this. can you explain it, since she never replied to my email (shock!)?

Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:25:26 -0400
To: wendy@XXXXX.com
From: saltypig@XXXXX.com
Subject: Rumsfeld -- laws don't apply to me!

your LRC blog post is titled "Rumsfeld -- laws don't apply to me!", yet the text appears to say the opposite. you state, "When asked to raise his hand and swear to tell the truth before giving testimony, Rumsfeld objected, saying that it was strange that laws applied to him."

based on the quote you provided from the article, that's not what he said: "'I find it strange,' he said to the investigators, on the grounds that as a government official 'the laws apply to me' anyway."

how does that become "laws don't apply to me" or "strange that laws applied to him"?

charley hardman
southern maryland

On the 29th I sent an email to Mr. Jeff Smith at the Washington Post seeking clarification of the statement that Rumsfeld had made. He replied today and his answer follows:

Vaughn --

thanks for your thoughtful note. that blog is indeed a misrepresentation of what rumsfeld said, and also what i wrote.

rumsfeld said he found taking an oath strange BECAUSE -- he said -- the laws apply to him anyway, so far as he knew.

his precise remarks -- as he interrupted the guy who was administering the oath -- were: "I am curious about an oath. Why is that oath different from the oath that I took when I became Secretary of Defense?" the answer was, "I am not sure, but, of course, you took the oath of office." Rumsfeld responded, "But this -- the laws apply to me and to answer questions in government the same as anyone else with or without an oath? Just -- it just -- I find it strange, but go ahead."

I hope this clears up the matter for you. Rumsfeld was arguing that taking the oath was superfluous. I found it interesting because I have never encountered such an objection in any transcript in all my years as a reporter. No other official I know about thought the procedure improper or unnecessary.

all best regards,

Jeff Smith

One could search this out in a variety of ways - here's one search query to Google that now shows 159 results - and they all appear to be based on the same incorrect information. There's definitely a bandwagon there - but it's not one I care to be on.

I'd like to thank those readers who strive to 'keep me honest'.

June 30, 2006