A generous interpretation would be that the researchers Morris uses have repeatedly nudged him towards particular conclusions. Morris is the guy btw who directed a feature-length documentary on Rumsfeld, then stated on camera what a shame it was that Rumsfeld never revealed anything particularly damning, how elusive Rumsfeld really was, how it's all a portrait of a guy you really can't pin down, nothing critical really stuck, it's a shame, etc. And that's a documentary that Rumsfeld was extremely cooperative with. Do you think that Rumsfeld would have been cooperative with Morris' documentary if there was a chance things might have gone another way? I doubt it.
There are obvious, less generous interpretations to be had about how Errol Morris appears to detour around deep political roadblocks. Alex Cox directed a better short film on the Umbrella Man, and anyone on this board could have asked more biting questions of Rumsfeld.
Just on the topic, as an example of Rumsfeld's media savvy when it counts, here's an earlier clip of Rumsfeld being interviewed in front of the Pentagon on September 13th 2001. The camera zooms in on a carefully positioned American flag, and Rumsfeld is lost for words with the angst of it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKPsfONWPdY
The ABC News reporter is John McWethy. By a huge coincidence, McWethy, a national security correspondent for ABC News who had covered the Iran Contra affair, was earlier involved in constructing the official story for both the Oklahoma bombing, and the Pentagon attack. His Wikipedia page lists him as being 'heavily involved' with reporting on the former.
Quote:
"The fact that it was such a powerful bomb in Oklahoma City immediately drew investigators to consider deadly parallels that all have roots in the Middle East,"ABCs John McWethy proclaimed the same day.
https://fair.org/extra/the-oklahoma-city-bombing/
And here's McWethy letting us know the official account of the Pentagon event - light poles being knocked down, witnesses confirming the story - because he was there on the scene when it happened and ABC News cut immediately to him at the scene when they wanted an explanation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSUJKq7MMQ0
If it isn't obvious, McWethy was likely a spook asset, throwing out official story pabulum for the masses and being Johnny on the spot whenever something was blown up and required a prompt cover story. This is why he was chosen to be Rumsfeld's confidante throughout the sombre walk in front of the Pentagon for the TV cameras, and why thereafter he was the guy in 2004 chosen to do further PR interviews with both Cheney and Rumsfeld. McWethy was an asset, and he fulfilled his role. Given an example like this, is Rumsfeld going to later sit down and do a probing, feature-length tell-all with someone who was an unknown quantity, or someone who would stay within the required boundaries and do what he was told? The latter, clearly.
I'm keen to see further details of what Kris and Hank have to say about WORMWOOD, but it's no surprise that, yet again, a mainstream media outlet has sidestepped the heart of the matter.
