Vice President Dick Cheney, Bush's shady and cynical servant, refuses to deal with the truth no matter how compelling and overwhelming the facts are. Cheney is the lord of the lies, the Bushevik Beelzebub, now hopelessly caught in his own deceptions and treachery.

We now know they both kept repeating a known lie -- that Iraq had secret trailers used as biological weapons labs -- long after a Pentagon-sponsored fact-finding group unanimously concluded the trailers had nothing whatsoever to do with weapons of any kind.

The report in the Washington Post caused White House spokesman Scott McClellan to fume. How could the Post, McClellan howled, give the impression "that the president was saying something he knew at the time not to be true." Matrons across America reached for their smelling salts, faint at the notion that someone might suggest that Dubya purposefully lied. Mercy me.

Bush and Cheney's lies are legion. They effectively used lies to scare the hell out of the American people and they still do. But now, they must manufacture more lies to fuel more fear to keep their mass-deception operation going. They are struggling to keep the old lies alive until the new ones roll off the assembly line.

Their base -- the corporate-military-religious right folks --is eager to carry the new canards to the faithful as soon as the marketing launch time is just right. The menace of Iran is the sure-bet product, with the usual suspects in the media anxious to sell it.

Iraq was sold as a threat and Saddam Hussein's horrible weapons were what we most had to fear. Biological and chemical weapons in Iraq were fearsome. Bush assured the United Nations the evil regime in Iraq had a "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs.

Saddam, Cheney solemnly warned us, was hankering to build some nukes. The first thing he would do would be to slip a few dirty bombs to his old pal and partner in terror, Osama bin Laden.

The Busheviks created the mythology, mounted on a tripod of smoking-gun "evidence." Saddam was attempting to buy uranium for nuclear weapons. He bought aluminum tubes that could "only be used" for nuclear weapons. He constructed and operated mobile biological labs in trailers to manufacture disease-bearing weapons. Slam-dunk. Or so they thought.

All lies. Pure lies. And as each of these lies became apparent and independent intelligence experts reported this information, the Busheviks kept parroting the lies that suited their political purposes.

The pattern is repeated and unmistakable. Bush, Cheney and company would keep spouting the lies that were the result, not of "intelligence failures," but were known to be lies. This was necessary to continue the grand deception used to sell the war in the first place and cloak the truth about the real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Ambassador Joseph Wilson and European intelligence operatives knew the story that Iraq was trying to buy enriched uranium from Niger was false. An Italian newspaper revealed how a bunch of international scam artists used obviously forged documents to promote the hoax in a dizzying scheme to sell the lie.

Their motive was simple. They wanted to make money selling the fabricated information to intelligence services, long before the Busheviks had set their sights on Iraq. The French spotted the fraud right away, and so did the Italians.

But after Sept. 11, the fraud was revived with the help of one of outgoing Italian Prime Minister and Bush ally Silvio Berlusconi's magazines. The same forged documents were recycled. The British and the Busheviks drooled all over them.

Of course, those were the very governments looking for any claim -- true or not -- to make the case for war with Iraq. Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's private intelligence operatives in the Pentagon pounced on the bogus Niger story and made it one of the principal reasons for war. Bush even used it in a State of the Union address.

Joe Wilson knew the story had holes, and warned the CIA. When he told the truth -- that the White House knew it was peddling lies -- he had to pay a price. Bush and Cheney unleashed their political thugs Karl Rove and Scooter Libby to discredit, even destroy Wilson. Exposing his wife's undercover job as a CIA officer was just one weapon they used.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, who brought the indictment of Scooter Libby to a federal grand jury and is still investigating others in the White House, argued that the Busheviks were involved in a concerted effort to lash out against a critic.

In a legal filing in the case, Fitzgerald said leaks of classified information were used in a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" involved in the plan to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" Wilson.

Libby claimed he got the OK from Cheney, with Bush's authorization, to leak intelligence information to friendly reporters. It's about time Bush and Cheney released transcripts of their interviews with Fitzgerald. That would sure help clear the air or, more likely, fill the atmosphere with more lies -- criminal ones at that.

The "National Journal's" Murray Waas blew the lid off another example of the Busheviks' incessant use of a phony rationale for war long after experts have discredited it. That was Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons.

Waas reported that as early as October 2002, Bush and Cheney had reports from the Energy Department and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluding that the tubes were "intended for conventional weapons."

That judgment -- which turned out to be the correct one -- was never shared with the Congress and certainly not with the American people. Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, insisted the tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons." The Busheviks ignored all the expert reports that challenged Rice's false assertion.

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," Bush proclaimed to a group of Polish television reporters when one of them dared to ask the president where they were.

Remember, the Poles sent troops to Iraq, and the nation's political leaders -- bribed with U.S. money -- told their people the young Poles were fighting to save the world from Saddam's illicit weapons arsenal.

Bush made his unequivocal proclamation on May 29, 2003. But the Washington Post reports that two days before Bush bragged about the phony find of weapons, a secret fact-finding mission "had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons."

A prime source for these frightening tales was an Iraqi engineer who defected to Germany in 1999. German intelligence gave him the code name "Curveball" and he was in time to become the Busheviks' main man in providing information on Iraq's "secret labs."

The Germans had concluded, years before the Busheviks decided to go to war with Iraq, that "Curveball" was a fraud, a liar and a nut. But those credentials made him a perfect puppet-informant for Cheney and Rumsfeld. He was willing to say anything to confirm their suspicions that Saddam had an active biological-weapons program.

After Saddam's fall, the weapons Rumsfeld said he knew "exactly" where to find were elusive. No one could find any. So you can imagine how excited the warmongers were when they got word the military had captured two trailers possibly used for bioweapons production. Cheney and Rummy were toasting each other and swilling down single-malt scotches.

Anxious for the satisfaction and propaganda value of the moment, the Pentagon hurried a team of technical experts to Iraq to evaluate the trailers. The CIA already had a draft of a white paper describing the trailers as "the strongest evidence to date that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program."

The technical team, the Post reported, included eight Americans and a Brit, "each with at least a decade of experience in one of the essential technical skills needed in bioweapons production."

The experts worked in the sweltering sun, checking vats and valves, taking hundreds of photographs. By the end of the day, there were different opinions about what the trailers were used for, but there was certainty about what they were not.

One team member whose identity was protected told the Post, "Within the first four hours, it was clear to everyone that these were not biological labs."

On May 27, the technical team transmitted their unanimous findings. Within a day, the CIA posted on its Web site the paper titled "Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production Plants." The next day, Bush proclaimed, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction." The lies lived. The truth was buried.

By late June, then-secretary of state Colin Powell said that the "confidence is increasing" that the trailers were meant to be used to produce biological weapons. In September, Cheney said the "mobile biological laboratories" could have been used to produce anthrax and smallpox. Lies, lies and more lies, and they knew it.

If we had a real Senate Intelligence Committee, instead of that horrible excuse for one run by that shameless White House whore, Sen. Pat Roberts, the panel would be demanding to know who got the technical team report on the trailers and what was done with it.

I'm sure Rumsfeld saw the report, since the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency assembled the technical team. Poor Rummy. All those generals are calling for his head.

What took them so long?

Rumsfeld is the worst defense secretary in American history and certainly one of the worst military strategists since the invention of gunpowder.

The very name Rumsfeld should mean an arrogant person bursting with incompetence. Bush is right to keep him on board. Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are rats richly deserving to be with their captain on his sinking ship of state.

They deserve their fates. The tragedy is how many more Iraqis and Americans will die for their lies.

Only a fraction of the world's 9.2 million refugees have the means to reach the industrialised world to seek asylum. Those who do are increasingly likely to be treated like criminals as rich countries put up the barriers to keep out terrorists and economic migrants.

"More and more, asylum-seekers are portrayed not as refugees fleeing persecution and entitled to sanctuary, but rather as illegal migrants, potential terrorists and criminals - or at a minimum, as 'bogus'," the report by the office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), warns.

The UNHCR singles out a Europe-wide initiative launched by Tony Blair in 2003 as an example of how the industrialised north is trying to make the developing world cope with more than its share of refugees. "Are affluent states about to outsource refugee protection to low-cost, no-frills countries? Some observers would affirm that this is already happening, with the deflection policies of the north leaving the south with a disproportionate share of the protection burden," the report says.

As an example, it cites an attempt by Britain, Denmark and the Netherlands to introduce a new policy under which some classes of asylum-seekers would be removed to centres outside Europe while their cases are processed. The move, backed by Tony Blair, was defeated by Germany, France and Sweden.

Antonio Guterres, the High Commissioner, is to launch the report,The State of the World's Refugees, with Hilary Benn, the International Development Secretary. It is the first major survey of its kind since 2000.

The good news is that the total number of refugees in the world is at its lowest level for 25 years. The number of asylum-seekers is also at its lowest for many years - in Britain, it has fallen to a 13-year low. The total number of migrants of all kinds around the world is about 175 million, barely one in 20 of whom is a refugee.

Millions of refugees have been repatriated or resettled over the past five years, including more than four million who have gone home to Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands who have returned to Angola, Sierra Leone, Burundi and Liberia. But the total figure for refugees may mask the increasing difficulty the displaced are having finding any form of sanctuary, even in neighbouring countries. This is the "biggest failure" of world humanitarian efforts, Mr Guterres says. "People who would otherwise seek safety in neighbouring states are more frequently compelled to remain within the borders of their own country, most often in similar conditions as refugees," the report says. As of 2004, there were up to 25 million internally displaced people around the world, a big increase since era of the Cold War.

Another source of concern is the plight of refugees in protracted exile - 5.7 million people. But as the effects of globalisation have brought a surge in the number of people leaving their home countries for economic reasons, there are fears that the rights of genuine asylum-seekers and refugees may be undermined. The report says: "In the past few years, asylum issues and refugee protection have become inextricably linked with the question of international migration, particularly irregular migration."

The refugee should "not pay the price", Mr Guterres said yesterday.

Asked about the debate in Britain on the extent to which extremist parties such as the BNP could benefit in next month's local elections by a blurring of race and immigration issues, he replied: "There is a populist approach to politics, sometimes also in the media - not only in Britain. They try to mix everything - migration, asylum, refugees and security concerns with terrorism. It is absolutely essential that things are clarified. Refugees are not terrorists, they are the first victims of terror." He added: "Let's be frank, the majority of refugees are not in the developed world, they are in the developing world. And that large majority does not want to migrate to the developed world, they want to go home."

Although there are seven orphanages in the capital, Baghdad, and another 16 in other provinces, "they aren't enough to provide assistance to all the orphans in the country", said al-Chalabi. She went on to point out that the increase in the number of orphans countrywide was an inevitable result of the bombings, assassinations and sectarian violence currently plaguing the country.

According to a 2005 report issued by the US Agency for International Development (USAID), there were some 5,000 orphans in the capital alone, many of whom have been ostracised by society and have little hope of finding education or shelter.

"My two brothers and I work with our uncle in the streets of Baghdad as peddlers," said Ahmed Chaloob, 10, whose parents were killed in a bomb attack two months ago. "I know nothing about orphanages, and I don't think my uncle would let us go because he needs us to work," added Chaloob, who currently lives in a small room with eight other relatives.

Orphans often live in the streets as beggars or drug addicts. Some are believed to have been used by terrorists to carry out attacks; others have reportedly been forced by criminal gangs to work as thieves, according to ministry officials.

Given the prevailing atmosphere of violence and confusion, there are no reliable statistics for the number of orphans in the country. "We don't have accurate numbers," said al-Chalabi. "Officially, there are 642 orphans registered in our orphanages," he added, estimating this number to represent a mere 10 percent of the total number nationwide.

"I've been here since 1996 with my brother, and I have two sisters living in [another] orphanage," said Mustafa Hameed, a 15 year-old orphan at Baghdad's al-Wazeriyah orphanage. "After our mother died in a car accident and our father remarried, we were taken here where we found care and love."

The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs provides some US $2,000 per month to each of the country's orphanages, and ministry officials hope to eventually increase this amount to cover the requirements of additional orphans in the future.

"Orphans are provided with food, social services, health care, psychological care, education and other activities, such as computer training and painting," said Abtesaam Rasheed, manager of the al-Wazeriyah orphanage. "But much more is required - we need support from the government and international NGOs to expand capacity and provide training for our social workers."

In a surprise, the new poll found that 44% of Republicans now back withdrawing some or all troops from Iraq. The number for all Americans, 64%, is higher, but the fact that better than 4 in 10 Republicans back this idea is notable. Indepedents are tracking much closer to Democrats on all issues related to Iraq.

In another finding, 57% of Americans say it was a mistake to send troops to Iraq, while 42% say it was not. Since December 2005, either a plurality or majority of Americans have said it was a mistake.

The breakdown on the troop pullout question is: 36% say to withdraw "some" troops, while 28% want to withdraw all troops.

Because of the way the United States set things up after the invasion, contractors are immune from prosecution by Iraqis. And even when firms are prosecuted, the millions of dollars in fines go to the US Treasury, not the Iraqi people. It amounts to two invasions. First the bombs. Then the banks.

This is robbery, not reconstruction.

It also amounts to yet another slow-motion lie by the Bush administration. The magnitude of the corruption brings into sharper relief the claims made by then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz a month before the war.

The claims came from the same infamous testimony before the House Budget Committee where Wolfowitz said Army chief of staff Eric Shinseki was ''wildly off the mark'' for saying several hundred thousand troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq. Wolfowitz told the committee that the administration was ''doing everything possible in our planning now to make post-war recovery smoother and less expensive.''

Besides pooh-poohing Shinseki's estimates, Wolfowitz said a Washington Post story that quoted administration officials as saying the initial invasion would cost $60 billion to $95 billion was also way off the mark. Speaking about such administration officials, Wolfowitz said, ''I don't think he knows what he's talking - he or she knows what they're talking about. I mean, I think the idea that it's going to be eclipsed by these monstrous future costs ignores the nature of the country we're dealing with.''

''It's got already, I believe, on the order of $15 billion to $20 billion a year in oil exports, which can finally - might finally be turned to a good use instead of building Saddam's palaces. It has one of the most valuable undeveloped sources of natural resources in the world. And let me emphasize, if we liberate Iraq, those resources will belong to the Iraqi people, that they will be able to develop them and borrow against them.''

''It is a country that has somewhere between, I believe, over $10 billion -- let me not put a number on it - in an escrow account run by the United Nations. It's a country that has $10 billion to $20 billion in frozen assets from the Gulf War, and I don't know how many billions that are closeted away by Saddam and his henchmen. But there's a lot of money there and to assume that we're going to pay for it is just wrong.''

Wolfowitz was wrong on nearly every point, except for the idea that there was about $20 billion floating around Iraq to seize. It has been three years and all Iraq has become is a ''free-fraud zone,'' according to one of the attorneys for whistleblowers in Iraqi swindles. Recently, the Army found that Halliburton had $263 million of exaggerated or unexplainable costs on a $2.4 billion no-bid contract, yet still paid Halliburton $253 million of the $263 million.

Halliburton is in 103rd place in the Fortune 500 with $21 billion in revenues and just under $2.4 billion in profits. Halliburton gets its $2.4 billion no-bid contract nearly paid in full while the Iraqi people are out of much of their $21 billion. We liberated Iraq. The resources belong to American contractors.

On Monday, April 17, my sources in Baghdad reported fierce fighting in the al-Adhamiya neighborhood of the capital city, as well as fighting in the al-Dora neighborhood. One source, who lives in the predominantly Sunni area of Adhamiya, had been telling me the situation was disintegrating for days leading up to this. There had been clashes every day for four days leading up to yesterday's huge clash there, with sporadic fighting between Sunni resistance fighters and members of the two largest Shia militias. The armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Organization, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army have been launching ongoing attacks against fighters in the neighborhood. There is a shorter version of this description.

Civil war.

Yet we don't hear it described as such in the corporate media, nor from the Cheney administration. Their propaganda insists that Iraq is not yet in a civil war.

But in Adhamiya, every night now for several weeks roads have been closed with tires, trunks of date palm trees and other objects to prevent "kidnappers and Shia death squads" from entering the area, according to one source, whom I'm keeping anonymous for security reasons.

His description of the fierce fighting in his neighborhood is quite different from the reporting of it in mainstream outlets.

"Sunday night at 12:30 a.m. clashes started just like on the four previous nights, but it was very heavy and from different directions. It was different from the other nights in quantity and quality; it was truly like the hell which I haven't seen even in the battles of the war between Iraq and Iran during the eighties," wrote my source. He added that mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were used, and so much ammunition that the sky was "glowing red." The situation went on until Monday morning. He said, "I usually have my cup of coffee in my small backyard to drink it in a good atmosphere, but the minute I opened the door someone from the interior ministry commandos shouted at me, telling me to get inside or he'd shoot me. Of course I stayed inside and the shooting continued in a very heavy way until 12:30 p.m., when the American forces came to start helping the militia's attack on al-Adhamiya after they were watching the scene from their helicopters."

He went on to state very clearly that "these were members of the Badr militia and Sadr's Mehdi Army who were raiding the neighborhood."

Another witness at the scene wrote, "Men in police uniforms attacked the neighbourhood. The Ministry of Interior claimed the uniformed men don't belong to the puppet [Iraqi government] forces, but local residents are quite sure they are special-forces from the Ministry of Interior, probably Badr brigades. The neighbourhood was sealed off and the mobile phone network was disconnected until 10:45 p.m. Electricity was cut off from 10 a.m. on."

Meanwhile, Reuters obediently parroted the US military by reporting that "Insurgents mount bold attack in Baghdad," and saying, "About 50 insurgents mounted a brazen attack on Iraqi forces in Baghdad on Monday, prompting U.S. troops to provide support in a battle that lasted seven hours, a U.S. military spokesman said. The guerrillas attacked Iraqi forces in the mostly Sunni Arab district of Adhamiya in northern Baghdad overnight. Five rebels were killed and one member of the Iraqi forces was wounded. There were no U.S. casualties, said the spokesman."

While this press report quoted an Iraqi police official as saying, "Adhamiya residents have taken up arms to prevent the Shi'ite militia from entering," and "Adhamiya residents said Shi'ite militiamen accompanied the Iraqi forces," it added that this could not be confirmed.

An Iraqi in Adhamiya confirmed this immediately after the clashes ended by writing, "When the uniformed forces entered the neighbourhood, the National Guards that are usually patrolling the streets left. Young armed men from the neighbourhood fought side by side with mujahedin against the attacking forces to protect Al-Adhamiya. Several residents have been killed in the streets, but there are currently no figures available. US troops also entered the neighbourhood. At first, they only stood by and watched; later on they, too, fired at the locals, who tried to repel the attacks. Later in the day, rumours circulated that another fierce attack of Al-Adhamiya is planned on Wednesday, but ... couldn't confirm this information."

Other news outlets directly contradict the aforementioned statement by the US military spokesman, when one reported that "gunmen clashed with residents in Baghdad's Aadhamiya district."

Of course, the military spokesman also failed to mention that on the same day, "Four gunmen attacked a Sunni mosque killing a guard in the Adhamiya district of the capital."

Instead, we hear reporting that "[US] Army officials said they had suffered no casualties, and plan to raid homes in search for the gunmen."

Disturbingly, this obvious US-backed Shia militia invasion of a Sunni neighborhood may well be a prelude to what the US military is calling a "second liberation of Baghdad" which they will carry out with the Iraqi army when a new government is installed.

The Sunday Times reports that US commanders both in Iraq and at an army base in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, are planning a "carrot-and-stick" approach by offering suffering populations "protection" from sectarian violence in exchange for "rooting out insurgent groups or Al-Qaeda."

Sound like mafia tactics to you?

The article states that "Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces would take the lead, supported by American air power, special operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops. Helicopters suitable for urban warfare, such as the manoeuvrable AH-6 "Little Birds" ... are likely to complement the ground attack."

This is disturbingly similar to what just occurred in al-Adhamiya.

Another glaring example of the Cheney administration/US military's ongoing war on truth in Iraq is the open wound which is Fallujah.

Heavy-handed assaults by the US military continue in Fallujah, where as recently as this Monday three Iraqi civilians were killed, along with 10 wounded in the Jebail district of the city. Of the 10 wounded, three were women and two were children. According to Mustafa Karim, with an Iraqi security force in the city, "US forces fired on houses in the district following confrontations with armed groups in the vicinity." Karim added that residents of Fallujah have been demanding an easing of the tight security procedures imposed by Iraqi and US armed forces on the region since November 2004, which have obstructed the passage of civilians into and out of the region, and "Fallujah has been recently witnessing a renewed escalation of armed confrontations between US forces and armed Iraqi groups."

In fact, fierce fighting in Fallujah has been ongoing since just a few months after the November 2004 US attack, which destroyed most buildings and homes in the city of 350,000 people.

But the US military doesn't want people to see that American soldiers are dying there on nearly a daily basis as of late. Rather than calling it Fallujah when soldiers die there, they prefer a sort of Bermuda Triangle approach and use "Al-Anbar Province" for the location of these deaths.

Let's have a brief glance at some soldiers killed recently in "Al-Anbar Province":

* April 17, Department of Defense (DOD) announced (hyperlink 'announced' with http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060417-12834.html ) the death of a Marine who "died April 14 from a non-hostile motor vehicle accident in Al-Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 16, CENTCOM announced: "Camp Fallujah, Iraq - A Marine ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 15."

* April 16, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - Multi-National Forces (MNF) Iraq announced: "Three Marines ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 15."

* April 15, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "Two Marines died and 22 were wounded due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 13 ... Ten wounded Marines ... were evacuated to a medical facility at Camp Fallujah."

* April 15, DOD announced: "four Marines died April 15 when their HMMWV struck an improvised explosive device during combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 11, DOD announced: "Lance Cpl. Juana NavarroArellano, 24 ... died April 8 from wounds received while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "A soldier ... died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 8."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced: "Two soldiers ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 9."

* April 8, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced: "A Marine ... died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar Province April 7."

Note the clue that several of these are issued from "Camp Fallujah, Iraq."

This is hardly a complete list of US soldiers killed in Fallujah, and some of the aforementioned may not have actually been killed inside that city. However, military announcements of the deaths of soldiers in other places mention the name of specific cities, whether they occur in Samarra or Tal Afar or elsewhere.

Obviously the US military is being intentionally vague when it comes to their admittance of losing American soldiers within the city limits of Fallujah. An email I received Monday from one of my sources in Fallujah sheds much light as to why this is the case, not only in Fallujah, but throughout Iraq.

"Resistance [in Fallujah] is very active and all the destruction to the city by American soldiers did not succeed to stop them. You know the city was totally destroyed in the November attack and is still surrounded and closed for anyone other than citizens of the city. What is going on now is that the Americans are trying to conceal their failure here by not letting anybody in. There were at least five explosions today and more than one clash between resistance fighters and US soldiers. So all the military procedures, together with the thousands of casualties, were in vain. In short, the American Army seems to be losing control in this country and God knows what they will do in revenge. I expect the worst to come."

WASHINGTON - It has become a daily ritual, the defense of the defense secretary, complete with praise from serving generals, tributes from the president and, from the man on the spot, doses of charm, combativeness and even some humility.

A session on Tuesday was the third time in five days that Donald H. Rumsfeld had sought to make a public case to remain as defense secretary.

"There are no indispensable men," Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.

But the Bush administration sought to drive home the message that Mr. Rumsfeld was not going anywhere, no matter what critics might desire.

Again, Gen. Peter Pace of the Marines, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was at Mr. Rumsfeld's side, a visual prop to counter the message from a half-dozen or so retired generals that Mr. Rumsfeld should step down.

President Bush, having defended Mr. Rumsfeld on Friday from Camp David, had appeared before the cameras hours earlier, to make the case in person.

"I'm the decider, and I decide what's best," Mr. Bush said in the Rose Garden. "And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense."

Such extended repeated public displays of self-defense are not the norm in Washington, where beleaguered officeholders usually seek to maintain the pretense that criticism does not matter. Those who do respond most often use surrogates to extol their virtues.

But the extraordinary parade of generals who have stepped forward to defend Mr. Rumsfeld includes a bevy of retired officers, including Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Tommy R. Franks of the Army, who commanded American troops in the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts.

On Tuesday, Mr. Rumsfeld summoned another group of retired officers for a closed meeting, ostensibly to brief them on Iraq, but clearly also to enlist their support when they appear on television.

Perhaps the most notable examples of damage control since the retired generals' complaints gathered force have come from Mr. Rumsfeld, who has appeared on Al Arabiya television, the Rush Limbaugh radio program and, twice, before television cameras at the Pentagon.

The appearances have been layered with the verbal flair, acerbic wit and defiant touches that Mr. Rumsfeld has made his trademark. But on Tuesday, there was also an uncharacteristic flash of humility - an olive twig, if not a branch - from a man better known for his combativeness.

Mr. Rumsfeld, who has said he offered to resign two times after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, said he was "not inclined to be instantaneously judgmental" about what his critics were now saying, a message that has included complaints that his headstrong style causes him to disregard much of what anyone in a uniform tells him.

"Because of the importance of these matters being discussed, I'd like to reflect on them a bit," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

Within minutes, though, he said the views of the six generals who had called for his resignation were hardly representative, noting that the nation's 6,000 or 7,000 retired generals and admirals were not "unanimous on anything."

At Mr. Rumsfeld's side, General Pace added that soldiers in Iraq showed no discernible dissatisfaction with Mr. Rumsfeld. General Pace said Gen. Michael W. Hagee, Marine Corps commandant, had just been there and reported that he "got exactly zero questions about the leadership in the department."

The calls for Mr. Rumsfeld's resignation have abated since last week, when Mr. Bush asserted his authority as commander in chief to declare that Mr. Rumsfeld "has my full support and deepest appreciation."

The group that has called for the resignation includes two retired major generals who commanded troops in Iraq and a retired three-star general who was director of operations on the Joint Staff. Their comments have been criticized by other retired generals, who have said the group risks politicizing the armed forces.

A danger for Mr. Rumsfeld is that Republicans running in the November election will decide that his continued presence in the cabinet could drag down their prospects and urge Mr. Bush to dump him.

A Senate Republican aide said that despite expressions of support for Mr. Rumsfeld by some Republican senators, many other members expressed deep concern privately.

"The nervousness here is with a figure as controversial as Rumsfeld at the head of a war that's declining in popularity, that becomes a real political problem for members who are up for re-election this fall," said the aide, who insisted on anonymity because he had been told not to discuss senators' private conversations.

With Congress in recess, the aide said, he knew of no organized effort among Senate Republicans to make their concerns public or to take them to the White House. But the aide said he expected discussions to intensify when senators returned next week.

There are signs that the efforts to keep Republicans from defecting are working. On Tuesday, Representative Duncan Hunter, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, issued a news release taking on Mr. Rumsfeld's critics point by point. The statement notes that the secretary had 273 meetings with senior commanders last year, illustrating "that Secretary Rumsfeld respects and relies on the judgment of the Pentagon's uniformed leadership."

After taking questions for a half-hour, Mr. Rumsfeld went to meet the retired military officers and civilian analysts. Many of those invited comment regularly on CNN, Fox News and other television and radio outlets and are part of the same community that is proving a problem for the secretary.

In past meetings with the group, Mr. Rumsfeld has opened with lengthy statements. This time he said he would go straight to questions, participants said. He was asked about the criticism, said Maj. Gen. Thomas L. Wilkerson, who retired from the Marines and who attended the meeting.

"He said it's a diversion, and that it's taken him away from the full-time focus on things he needs to do," he said. Mr. Rumsfeld "was not chastened. If anything, he looked like he was energized by it."