Wanna watch Rumsfeld squirm? [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

yabanci

03-20-2004, 08:00 PM

reading him squirm is amusing too:

Sec. Rumsfeld: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `"immediate threat." I didn't. The president didn't. And, uh, it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

Schieffer: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. Rumsfeld: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

Schieffer: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. Rumsfeld: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Friedman: We have one here. It says "some have argued that the nu"--this is you speaking--"that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

Sec. Rumsfeld: And--and...

Friedman: It was close to imminent.

Sec. Rumsfeld: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Friedman: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Sec. Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know. David Kay said we're about 85 percent there. I don't know if that's the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group--we've got 1,200 people out there looking. It's a country the size of California. He could have hidden his--enough chemical or biol--enough biological weapons in that hole that--that we found Saddam Hussein in to kill tens of thousands of people. So--so it's not as though we have certainty today.

Dutch

03-20-2004, 08:01 PM

reading him squirm is amusing too:

At least he's willing to field tough questions. I guess he could have declined the interview.

dawgfan

03-20-2004, 08:08 PM

At least he's willing to field tough questions. I guess he could have declined the interview.

He made a bald-faced lie and was called on it, yet he gets credit for fielding a tough question?

I suppose given the fact that the administration has tried to brainwash the American public that they didn't try to sell the Iraq War at least partially on the premise of Iraq being an imminent threat to the U.S. that Rumsfeld really didn't have much choice but to continue to repeat that lie when questioned about it, so I guess there is something there to admire - he's ballsy, I'll give you that. You can't trust anything he says, but he is ballsy...

Vinatieri for Prez

03-20-2004, 09:18 PM

That was good. You know, I am not that busted up about politicians that try to do something good but fail. At least their heart is in the right place. Sometimes, events beyond their control prevent them from getting the job done.

Here, we have politicians who don't even have heart. To me, the deception Bush and his crew have practiced with the American people is a travesty. This goes so far beyond lying in a deposition about sex. People have died, and will continue to die because of this deception. Recent events with the environment by ordering the EPA to leave stuff out of their reports, using numbers to support their healthcare bill they knew were incorrect to sell it to Congress, etc., lead me to believe that this is by far the most dishonest President and Whitehouse in a long, long time. I frankly don't trust them to ever have the interest of the American people at the forefront of their decision making, and it is a real shame that they may even get a sniff at another term.

So much for "restoring character and integrity to the Whitehouse."

Dutch

03-20-2004, 10:46 PM

People have died, and will continue to die because of this deception.

I want you to go find a soldier and tell them that what they are doing is BS because moveon.org told you so.

Ksyrup

03-20-2004, 11:00 PM

I think what Rumsfeld said was wrong, but not for the reasons you suggest. The problem here is that people are refusing to acknowledge that the entire world had bad information about the state of Iraq's weapons program. It wasn't just our country, and it wasn't just this administration. The Clinton administration believed the same things the Bush administration did and had the same intelligence (or lack thereof). When Kay made his comments a couple of months ago, all that was excerpted was, "The US was working from flawed intelligence." The rest of what he said was, "So was the rest of the world, for the better part of the last decade." That includes the UN, and that bad information formed the basis for the sanctions imposed on Iraq. At this point, who knows what reality is/was?

Frankly, I think that suffices as an answer. But the press refuses to accept and report that, so Rumsfeld and others are putting themselves in the unwinnable position of refuting that they relied on that information to make the judgment they did about Iraq. And that is wrong - both factually, and because relying on that information was justified, IMO.

Glengoyne

03-20-2004, 11:15 PM

Axxon

03-20-2004, 11:19 PM

Schmidty

03-20-2004, 11:38 PM

Yeah, really - expecting truth from our leaders is an amusing concept isn't it?

Face it - Rumsfeld gave a B.S. answer about the administration's claims that Iraq was an imminent threat and was called on it. This should bother all of us, but we've become so cynical since Watergate and so politically polarized that this kind of thing has very little real affect...

Bill Clinton was extremely honest too, wasn't he? I didn't see dems complaining back then. He let Osama slip through his fingers on three different occasions, but I don't hear you guys mentioning that now.

Look, I honestly don't give a shit either way since I think both parties are equally corrupt; I just think it's hilarious how excited dems get when they think they can "catch" republicans in a misstep. It's hypocritically silly.

Flasch186

03-20-2004, 11:42 PM

Friedman: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Ummmm, Thats Friedman quoting Rumsfeld so he is saying...lemme find it and bold it, there we go, Immediate. That my friends makes what he says a lie. If it aint than I cant possibly believe any truth either since the lines will totally be blurred and neither will exist anymore. Lie to cover a lie....and he points the finger at Brinkley and says, "you critics." If I challenge what you say as being a falsehood, and Im RIGHT, then lemme be a critic. I just hope they dont retaliate against me after being a critic and all, god Forbid I dig up any more dirt, ie. the false estimate for the health care bill, the WMD, The build up to the war, the budget, his Manufacturing Czar, the ridiculous unemployment rate, his fudging the manufacturing numbers to make them look better (ie. Fast Food Workers reclassified as manufacturing = laughable), a plan to put a space launching station on the moon (not a terrible idea in the long run but unbelievably poor timing considering the economic hole were in right now), etc. etc. IT IS OK to challenge those in charge.....Our Country exists on that basis alone, Boston Tea Party was a great example.

Vinatieri for Prez

03-21-2004, 12:16 AM

I want you to go find a soldier and tell them that what they are doing is BS because moveon.org told you so.

I am not telling any soldiers that. What I would be telling them is that your president lied about why you were going there. Your argument misses the point of my post. I never once said it was wrong to be in Iraq. What I said is that the Whitehouse lied about why Iraq needed to be invaded.

In terms of the excuse we keep hearing about bad intelligence just simply doesn't wash anymore. As the stories keep coming out from Bush's former aides and cabinet members, Bush always wanted to go into Iraq, so he looked for whatever excuse he could find -- intelligence he KNEW was dubious. And this was my point -- they are dishonest and deceptive.

The best proof of that is that the intelligence was insufficient to prove most of American allies to support a war. For god's sake, even Canada wasn't convinced. Canada falls in step with the US on almost every international issue like this, and yet the "intelligence" was not enough to convince Canada.

It also become quite obvious why the invasion occurred. Bush wanted a presence in the Middle East, and now he has it. The link to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction were the best excuse around.

The exact opposite was true for Afghanistan. The terrorism link was there, everyone was convinced, and that was the right thing to do.

By the way, moveon.org did not tell me anything I am basing my opinion on. I could hear it from Rumsfield's very own lips (and the subsequent statements by former Bush advisors/cabinet members).

Vinatieri for Prez

03-21-2004, 12:44 AM

Bill Clinton was extremely honest too, wasn't he? I didn't see dems complaining back then. He let Osama slip through his fingers on three different occasions, but I don't hear you guys mentioning that now.

Look, I honestly don't give a shit either way since I think both parties are equally corrupt; I just think it's hilarious how excited dems get when they think they can "catch" republicans in a misstep. It's hypocritically silly.

Please tell me when Clinton lied about the reasons for going to war. I am not really a democrat, but I just want someone who will not lie about the BIGGEST issue facing the American people at the time. I am not sure how Osama slipped through Clinton's fingers becuase Clinton lied. You're just bringing up an entirely unrelated issue.

yabanci

03-21-2004, 01:09 AM

Actually I don't think that was even close to a bald faced lie. They quoted excepts of his statements, and the best they could do was come "close to imminent".

Ksyrup has the best handle on it. Oh not to mention that anyone who gets "news" from moveon.org, and hazes someone for citing Druge, has completely captured the concept of irony.

First, you clearly have misunderstood what happened if you think "the best they could do was come 'close to imminent.'" Just take a moment and pay attention to what he said and what he was confronted with:

Donald Rumsfeld, in the interview at issue:
"Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `"immediate threat." I didn't. The president didn't. And, uh, it's become kind of folklore..."

Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002:
"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. [emphasis added]"

Second, nobody is "getting news from moveon.org." Moveon.org is merely hosting a video clip of Rumsfeld being interviewed on CBS' Face the Nation. It's simply Rumsfeld answering questions by two interviewers who happened to be ready to impeach him with his own statements when he lied.

oykib

03-21-2004, 01:17 AM

This kind of thread never goes anywhere because the vast majority of people are nt honest themselves. Party politics have become an entertainment industry like sports. Poeple are supporters of their 'team' through thick and thin.

It's quite obvious that Bush and company have lied recently about the whole imminent threat stuff. But, of course, Cinton bombed an aspirin factory-- killing hundreds and denying countries their only access to, what are to them, medicines that mean the difference between life and death for tens of thousands-- to distract the populace from one of his personal scandals and no democrats ever say anything about that.

As for whether the current administration knew, or had a good idea, that the intelligence was unreliable in the first place is a judgement call that you have to make. But, from my experience, conservatives are much more likely in most circumstances to be in the "if there's smoke, there's fire" crowd. Though, they don't seem to be applying that here.

Honolulu_Blue

03-21-2004, 07:52 AM

Bill Clinton was extremely honest too, wasn't he? I didn't see dems complaining back then. He let Osama slip through his fingers on three different occasions, but I don't hear you guys mentioning that now.

Look, I honestly don't give a shit either way since I think both parties are equally corrupt; I just think it's hilarious how excited dems get when they think they can "catch" republicans in a misstep. It's hypocritically silly.

Listen, I think there is a huge f*cking difference between:

A) Lying about getting a blow-job

and

B) Lying about the reasons for starting a war that has led to the deaths of thousands.

Just trying to be perspective-guy here...

Yossarian

03-21-2004, 08:14 AM

If my girlfriend ever cought me starting a war with another girl... sheesh. my life would be over...

Flasch186

03-21-2004, 08:24 AM

"Second, nobody is "getting news from moveon.org." Moveon.org is merely hosting a video clip of Rumsfeld being interviewed on CBS' Face the Nation. It's simply Rumsfeld answering questions by two interviewers who happened to be ready to impeach him with his own statements when he lied."

That is the best kind of news there is. The true only argument is that "He was taken out of context". That is the status quo for this moment, not "you dont understand what he said." that simply doesnt wash when you see it with your own eyes, unless of course you want to travel down the path of "Of dont believe what you see and hear." then that would be different but also expose yourself as being completely closed minded and willing to only hear things that support your argument.

The idea here in America, I believe, is to be open minded. You have to give credit to the admin when they do something right. Some could say he was right on the following issues:

Constitutional Gay Marriage Ban
Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Cutting Taxes
Immigration Policy
etc.

These are opinions and thus cannot be wrong

The following are issues that he has lied about:

Medicare drug plan bill
WMD
Iraq is an "immediate" threat (you could argue the duration of Immediate)
The Economy will creat 2.something million jobs in the next 4 years (they even retracted this two weeks later)
etc.

Those are the facts....that he lied (well the admin did). If you cant even see it and believe it, then couldnt yuou be sold anything that the admin says? Im glad youre not an employee at Enron, cuz buddy, you could end up broke.

Dutch

03-21-2004, 09:46 AM

Not taken out of context, huh? Let's see what moveon.org didn't tell you.

Donald Rumsfeld,
There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few -- but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Mr. Chairman, these facts are Saddam Hussein's regime should be part of the record and of our country's consideration:

He's ordered the use of chemical weapons against his own people, in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in a day.

His regime has invaded two of its neighbors.

It's launched ballistic missiles against four of its neighbors.

He plays host to terrorist networks.

He regularly assassinates his opponents, both in Iraq and abroad.

He's executed a member of his own cabinet, whom he personally shot and killed.

He's ordered doctors to surgically remove the ears of military deserters.

His regime has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in Northern Iraq.

His regime on almost a daily basis continues to fire missiles and artillery at U.S. and coalition aircraft.

He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including Anthrax, botulism, toxins and possibly Smallpox.

He's amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX, Sarin and mustard gas.

His regime has an active program to acquire nuclear weapons.

His regime has dozens of ballistic missiles and is working to extend their ranges in violation of UN restrictions.

He has in place an elaborate organized system of denial and deception to frustrate both inspectors and outside intelligence efforts.

His regime has diverted funds from the UN's Oil for Food program, funds intended to feed starving Iraqis to fund weapons of mass destruction programs. He's violated 16 UN resolutions, repeatedly defying the will of the international community without cost and without consequence.

As the president warned the United Nations last week, his regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger that we do not have the option to ignore.

President Bush made clear that the United States wants to work with the UN Security Council but he made clear the consequences of Iraq's continued defiance. The purpose of the United States should not be doubted, he said; the Security Council resolutions will be enforced or action will be unavoidable, and a regime that has lost its legitimacy will also lose its power.

The president has asked the members of the Congress to support actions that may be necessary to deliver on that pledge. He urged that the Congress act before the recess. Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message, just as we are asking the international community to take a stand and as we are cautioning Iraq to reflect on its options.

It was Congress that changed the objective of U.S. policy from containment to regime change by passage of the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 by, as I recall, something like a ten to one margin in both houses. The president is now asking Congress to support that policy. A decision to use military force potentially is never easy and it's important that the issues surrounding this decision be discussed and debated seriously.

Does moveon.org simply "report the news" or do they incite the crowd?

wig

03-21-2004, 09:51 AM

Just because the reasons we got for going to war may have been wrong, does not mean that we still aren't doing the right thing.

wig

03-21-2004, 09:51 AM

Some of you people forget that

Dutch

03-21-2004, 09:57 AM

What other parts of Rumsfeld Testimony to the Armed Services Committee does moveon.org cite was lying?

They don't claim he lied about anything else. And the one thing they said he lied about was clearly taken out of context. And how many people fall for this form of journalism, "hook, line, and sinker"?

That's the part of journalism that concerns me for being "unchecked".

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:14 AM

I want you to go find a soldier and tell them that what they are doing is BS because moveon.org told you so.

A soldier is just doing what they are told. Comparing the acts of the political heads involved to what the individual foot-soldier is doing is like apples and oranges. Put the flag away, because this is not the argument you're looking for. The Vietnam War was a sham, that got a lot of people killed. Do I blame my Dad for the work he did over there in the Army? No, he did what he was told, and had the belief that what he was told was the right thing to do. The politicians in this country are the ones that sent us all down that river and are ultimately responsible for the deaths of every US soldier that was sent into that conflict. Much like the Iraq debacle, where one year after invasion US soldiers are killed nearly everyday. That blood rests at the feet and hands of the politicians in D.C. The least they could do is try to be completely honest about the statements they've given, right? Is it really asking for too much to expect that little bit of honesty from them?

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:15 AM

Just because the reasons we got for going to war may have been wrong, does not mean that we still aren't doing the right thing.

Ok. Why do you think Rumsfeld was being dishonest about his very own statements? What do YOU think was his motivation? Is he just dumb (and then not qualified for the post)?

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:20 AM

They don't claim he lied about anything else. And the one thing they said he lied about was clearly taken out of context. And how many people fall for this form of journalism, "hook, line, and sinker"?

Ok. So, it's just a little technical thing. He insisted he had never said Iraq posed an immediate threat. The record says he did. That was just a little slip, right? I just wish they gave Democrats this same treatment. If they held both Democrats and Republicans to the fire like this, we might actually get somewhere.

wig

03-21-2004, 10:33 AM

This whole thing where we try to "catch" politicians by picking apart every statement is really the problem.

We should be spending more time on the big picture. We need to hear these guys talking about issues instead of defending the words they used.

wig

03-21-2004, 10:34 AM

Debating the words is something that people do when they can't understand the whole issue.

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:35 AM

We should be spending more time on the big picture. We need to hear these guys talking about issues instead of defending the words they used.

US soldiers are still being killed nearly everyday in Iraq. You don't think statements given by the Secretary of Defense regarding this conflict are important? What "issues" should he talk about then?

Scoobz0202

03-21-2004, 10:39 AM

Not taken out of context, huh? Let's see what moveon.org didn't tell you.

Donald Rumsfeld,

Does moveon.org simply "report the news" or do they incite the crowd?
Yep, and of course the USA is the Police State of the World. While the other people of the world just sit on their ass it's our job to kill our soldier's to bring all the bad guys of the world down. Awesome.

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:39 AM

Debating the words is something that people do when they can't understand the whole issue.

If Rumsfeld had just admitted that he had done it, it would not have become an issue. He insisted that he had not done it. He got called on it. I think this is entirely appropriate. Politicians have been let off easy for a really long time and never made to explain their contradictions. I don't care what the context was. If he said that Iraq posed an immediate threat, then he said it. Going on TV and denying that you said it, is at best an oversight (though a major one when this is an ongoing conflict) and at worst an intentional false statement meant to deceive the public.

wig

03-21-2004, 10:42 AM

I stand by my statements

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:47 AM

I stand by my statements

:rolleyes:

Dutch

03-21-2004, 10:59 AM

I don't care...

Then what the hell are you bitching about?

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 11:05 AM

Then what the hell are you bitching about?

I didn't think I was bitching, but that is a rather subjective term so you can call it whatever you like. Rumsfeld said Iraq posed an immediate threat. Rumsfeld said that he had never said such a thing. Rumsfeld was wrong. I expect the Secretary of Defense to know what he has put into the record regarding an ongoing conflict where soldiers are killed daily.

Dutch

03-21-2004, 11:08 AM

So you are now saying you do care?

wig

03-21-2004, 11:10 AM

Tekneek is obviously the audience that Drudge and MoveOn.org is looking for.

:(

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 11:17 AM

So you are now saying you do care?

I am saying I don't care what the context of his original statement was. The argument was put forth that it was taken out of context. As if, somehow, it being taken out of that longer statement meant that Rumsfeld would forget that he said it. It doesn't matter to me that he said a lot of stuff about Iraq after that sentence. The facts are that he said Iraq posed an immediate threat, and now denies that he said it. All he had to say after they read it was that he forgot that he said it. Instead, he launched into an excuse about the bad intelligence they had.

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 11:18 AM

Tekneek is obviously the audience that Drudge and MoveOn.org is looking for.

:(

You think so? I've never looked at anything at MoveOn.org before this, but if you think they've been gearing their stuff towards me I will at least check it out once more. Thanks for the tip. Is anybody else looking for me as their audience?

Dutch

03-21-2004, 11:31 AM

I am saying I don't care what the context of his original statement was. The argument was put forth that it was taken out of context. As if, somehow, it being taken out of that longer statement meant that Rumsfeld would forget that he said it. It doesn't matter to me that he said a lot of stuff about Iraq after that sentence. The facts are that he said Iraq posed an immediate threat, and now denies that he said it. All he had to say after they read it was that he forgot that he said it. Instead, he launched into an excuse about the bad intelligence they had.

But you are saying it's fair to further explain yourself?

And I think Rumsfeld further explained himself.

He deserves fair treatment just like you do.

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 11:48 AM

But you are saying it's fair to further explain yourself?

And I think Rumsfeld further explained himself.

He deserves fair treatment just like you do.

Sure it is. He had his chance. Didn't they ask him at least once, maybe twice, before they read his own statement back to him? Then, he could have explained why he, a minute before, insisted he had never said such a thing. It doesn't seem that he did that.

This is what he chose to say:

"Mm-hmmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know. David Kay said we're about 85 percent there. I don't know if that's the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group--we've got 1,200 people out there looking. It's a country the size of California. He could have hidden his--enough chemical or biol--enough biological weapons in the hole that--that we found Saddam Hussein in to kill tens of thousands of people. So--so it's not as though we have certainty today.

"But what--think what happened. There were 17 UN resolutions. There was unanimous agreement that he had filed a fraudulent declaration. The final opportunity was given with the last resolution, and he didn't take it. He chose war. He didn't do what Kazakhstan did. He didn't do what South Africa did. He didn't do what Ukraine did. He--he didn't say, 'Come in and look and see what we have.' He was engaged in active deception. We'll ultimately know a great deal about what took place."

Nowhere in there did he explain why he had been insisting that he never made such a statement.

wig

03-21-2004, 11:50 AM

Debating the words is something that people do when they can't understand the whole issue.

Well said.

dawgfan

03-21-2004, 11:53 AM

It's amazing and a bit disturbing how some people's political views will warp their perception of reality.

It's very simple - Rumsfeld claimed he never described Iraq as being an 'immediate threat', claiming it was made up by the media and was some kind of folklore:

Sec. Rumsfeld: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `"immediate threat." I didn't. The president didn't. And, uh, it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

Schieffer: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. Rumsfeld: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

Schieffer: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. Rumsfeld: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em

Let's recap - Rumsfeld denies that he ever used the phrase "immediate threat" in regards to Iraq. He is then called on his lie, the most damning example of which is this:

Friedman: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

The point that the administration's apologists are either glossing over or missing altogether is this - Rumsfeld was continuing an attempt by the White House to deny that they'd used the reasoning of Iraq as an immediate threat to the U.S. to sell the war. He was lying to the public; fortunately, there were those at Meet the Press that had their act together and had the facts to call him on his lie.

It doesn't matter what the context of the speech was that the quote was pulled from - it doesn't change the fact that Rumsfeld lied about whether he'd ever described Iraq as an immediate threat.

We've reached a point in this country where this kind of dishonesty from our leaders is expected, but it doesn't make it any easier to accept. I was also very disappointed in Clinton for lying to the federal grand jury about his affair with Monica Lewinsky. However, you'd have to be politically slanted in order to believe that those lies were of equal importance - one was about a President's personal life; the other had to do with selling a war.

All this blather about getting news from moveon.org or drudge is irrelevant in this case - this is videotaped evidence from a nationally broadcast news program. The fact that it's moveon.org hosting this clip doesn't change the facts of what it shows, unless you think they've applied some kind of tricky editing or special effects to show something that didn't actually happen.

dawgfan

03-21-2004, 11:55 AM

Well said.

:rolleyes:

GrantDawg

03-21-2004, 02:59 PM

It's amazing and a bit disturbing how some people's political views will warp their perception of reality...It doesn't matter what the context of the speech was that the quote was pulled from - it doesn't change the fact that Rumsfeld lied about whether he'd ever described Iraq as an immediate threat.
You're right. It is amazing how people's political views warp perception. It doesn't matter what context a quote is from? Of course it does.

By the way, I think the White House are parsing words and that they did use inflammatory speech and questionable intelligence to make an argument that they believed they needed to go to war. I think that they did make this bed and the do have to lie in it. I just think you went way to far in that statement. Context is everything, and if you read that speech he is saying a "more immediate threat" which is true as opposed to "going to attack at any moment" which is what he is being accused of.

Buccaneer

03-21-2004, 03:09 PM

Listen, I think there is a huge f*cking difference between:

A) Lying about getting a blow-job

and

B) Lying about the reasons for starting a war that has led to the deaths of thousands.

Just trying to be perspective-guy here...There is a big difference, one is lying the other is not. When you know the exact truth and say the opposite, that is lying. When you don't know the truth and guess at it, that is misleading.

Besides, I never brought up the worthlessness and sleazyness of Clinton in regards to his marital cheatings and sexual assualts. There are many other wrongdoings and character faults that were more important than the BJ.

Buccaneer

03-21-2004, 03:12 PM

Besides H_B, I thought I remembered you (along with nearly everyone else) praising the fall of Saddam. Did you think it was going to happen any other way??? I guess avenging and stopping tens of thousands, maybe millions of deaths doesn't mean anything to you.

Vaj

03-21-2004, 04:08 PM

When you know the exact truth and say the opposite, that is lying. When you don't know the truth and guess at it, that is misleading.According to this formulation, Bush and Rice can't ever tell a lie. I suppose that's one way to bring honour and integrity back to the White House...

Chief Rum

03-21-2004, 04:24 PM

Ok. So, it's just a little technical thing. He insisted he had never said Iraq posed an immediate threat.

Do you, or anyone calling this statement explicitly dishonest know the difference between immediate threat and more immediate threat?

My guess from reading at least as far as the above quoted post is, no, you don't grasp that simple but critical difference in his statement.

I'm not a big fan of Rumsfeld. But if he's going to be fileted for a dishonest statement, at least get the full statement and understand the actual meaning of that statement before you call him on it.

CR

dawgfan

03-21-2004, 04:43 PM

You're right. It is amazing how people's political views warp perception. It doesn't matter what context a quote is from? Of course it does.

By the way, I think the White House are parsing words and that they did use inflammatory speech and questionable intelligence to make an argument that they believed they needed to go to war. I think that they did make this bed and the do have to lie in it. I just think you went way to far in that statement. Context is everything, and if you read that speech he is saying a "more immediate threat" which is true as opposed to "going to attack at any moment" which is what he is being accused of.

Grant, the conversation on that Meet the Press show turned to the phrase "immediate threat" in regards to Saddam's Iraq. Rumsfeld denied ever using the term and tried to paint it as folklore. The second quote pointed out by Friedman clearly shows Rumsfeld using that terminology; even if you look at the context of the quote, it's a long listing of the reasons why the administration thought that Iraq was the most immediate threat to this country. But whether you look at the context or not, he lied about never having used the term "immediate threat". Period.

And Chief, you've got to be kidding me about your spin of "no more immediate threat" being somehow different than "immediate threat"; how can you honestly read that original quote and the entire speech and draw any other conclusion than the administration considered Iraq an immediate threat? You're treading dangerously close to the same ground Clinton-bashers were so up in arms about regarding Clinton's legalese talk about definitions.

Bucc, please explain to me why Rumsfeld's lie is not a lie in your opinion while Clinton's is? They're both lies, but one had to do with the private life of the president while the other contributed to a war that the American people are questioning based on misleading reasoning.

Schmidty

03-21-2004, 04:55 PM

Front Office Football Central political debates:

Democratss: Everything Republican's do is wrong. Democrats can do no wrong. My blinders will not be budged.

Republicans: Everything Democrats do is wrong. Republicans can do no wrong. My blinders will not be budged.

Sometimes I think that the least intelligent discussions around here are political. Politics seem to make even the smartest person look like a mindless zombie.

jeff061

03-21-2004, 04:58 PM

Me: Politicians can do no right. My blinders will not be budged ;).

Chief Rum

03-21-2004, 05:00 PM

Chief Rum

03-21-2004, 05:04 PM

dola,

As for me treading the ground with CLinton bashers or whatever, I don't think it's wrong to ask that if you're going to make a charge of dishonesty at someone, that you use a little honesty yourself and make the whole statement and know the difference between "immediate threat" and "greater or more immediate threat". You are questioning the veracity of his statement; therefore, every literal meaning of that statement is up for grabs. If there is an interpretation that can be reasonably made that could not be said to be dishonest (and it appears there is), then the whole basis of your attack on the man needs to be adjusted to a view more along the lines of, oh, maybe more accuracy.

CR

jeff061

03-21-2004, 05:06 PM

Lets just say if we are going to war with someone, the reason behind doing so should be more than a guess.

But thats just me.

Glengoyne

03-21-2004, 05:23 PM

Lets just say if we are going to war with someone, the reason behind doing so should be more than a guess.

But thats just me.
Well I would say that prior to the aftemath in Iraq, I would have pretty much bet the house on WMD in Iraq. That was the level of faith I had in U.S. intelligence, hell pretty much every intelligence agency in the world for that matter. EVERYONE thought he had it. NO ONE stood up and said they had evidence to the contrary. No one was guessing, the people in charge believed what was reported to them. No lies, no deception. The worst thing you can say is that they mistakenly chose to play up the WMD reason beyond the others.

On the "out of context" and caught in a lie argument. First off isn't THE phrase being tossed around "immenent threat"? Quoting Rumsfeld saying " no other terrorist state poses a more immediate threat" isn't exactly damning. Well not if you have at least fifth grade reading comprehension. Even the interviewer said "that's pretty close to immenent". Speaking of the fifth grade, Pretty Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

Chief Rum

03-21-2004, 05:24 PM

Lets just say if we are going to war with someone, the reason behind doing so should be more than a guess.

But thats just me.

I agree, Jeff. I thought we had justification on the reports we were getting on the possibility of WMDs in Iraq. Other serious reasons to do it were Saddam's brutal dictatorship, his threat to the stability in the world's most unstable region, his misappropriation of food meant for his people (leaving them starving), his treatment of Kurds in the north and Shites int he south, and, of course, his utter flaunting of United Nations resolutions as part of an agreement set in place so we wouldn't kick him out of Baghdad in 1991.

But the WMDs and a potential more immediate threat to the U.S. was the reason for immediacy, as opposed to the others, that require responses, but perhaps not so quickly and/or without negotiation.

The fact that the intelligence on which those reports were made seems to be faulty and that the Bush admninistration acted on it, at best stupidly and at worst by outright deception, troubles me greatly. It reminds me again that I wish parties wouldn't necessarily lock into an incumbent and consider removing him in favor of someone more toward the middle, such as Senator John McCain.

That said, the Dems are giving me John Kerry and everything he represents. No F way. Completely splits apart from my views on most critical issues. And I can't see myself voting for smaller parties becasue I really do view it as throwing your vote away, sad as that is. So I am stuck with Bush and Rummy along with him.

All this is further conflicted, of course, by the fact that I have no doubt Saddam's removal was for the betterment of Iraq, the U.S., the Middle East and the world in general. I think it's a very difficult moral question to answer of whether illogical or dishonest or ignorant misled reasoning for taking an action is still justified if that action brings about significant good. In other words, another "do the ends justify the means?" argument. Those always make for the toughest calls.

So my view on RUmsfeld (and on the whole administration) is very conflicted right now. But I believe that if someone is going to be charged with something, then his accusers need to be using all the information at their disposal. They shouldn't omit words that could turn their whole stance into fluff, for instance. Nor should they ignore context. That's a coward's way of doing things, or the slothful way at the very least.

I'm certain an argument can be made for Rumsfled being dishonest. This isn't the way.

CR

Buddy Grant

03-21-2004, 05:58 PM

This thread is just trolling for Rumsfield apologists. Enough is enough, this thread should be closed already.

Dutch

03-21-2004, 06:12 PM

BG,

There are books on this very subject as well. Perhaps a burning is in order? :)

CR,

Solid and fair post.

fhasumi

03-21-2004, 06:43 PM

jeff061

03-21-2004, 06:48 PM

I do think the public, in general, has already forgotten that the pre-war push to start it was nothing but constant trumpeting of the weapons Sadam had, both towards the public and towards the UN. The fact that he was an evil man was not mentioned heavily until well after the war was launched.

I get kind of aggravated that the masses did not make a bigger deal over the fact that the primary reason we went to war doesn't exists.

This has nothing to do with being right wing or left wing. I don't classify myself and hate Kerry every bit as much as i hate Bush. In fact before the war started i was a pretty large Rumsfield fan, that view of the man has long since crumbled.

Chief Rum

03-21-2004, 07:00 PM

I think a lot of you Bush supporters are guilty of trying to change the subject when confronted with your administrations deceptions. When people at "MoveOn" or all the other lefty groups expose the deceit of Bush and his staff, Bush supporters try to turn the argument into "So, you're against the war, huh? So, you think Saddam was just going to quit eventually, huh? So, you think the soldiers are doing something worthless"...etc

The issue here is not about the merits of the war. The issue is whether or not the administration knowingly lied to the American people in order to start a war of CHOICE.

All of you how go through the littany of how evil Saddam was and how he needed to be removed are buying 100% into the Macheavellian notion of The ends justify the means

I think that low a level of committment to an honest rationale for war is scary.

I don't see the subjext being changed here in this thread at all, although you are probably right in general. For instance, my last few posts in this thread has been a direct attack on the rationalizing being done by those accusing Rumsfeld of dishonesty. How is that a change of the subject? In fact, I am directly addressing the veracity of Rumsfeld's statements, and noting his attackers' willingness to exclude parts of his statement to benefit their own stance.

Also, considering this dishonesty accusation is intricately involved in Iraq, I would say anything involving the war and the reasons for doing so is fair game, is it not?

I have already talked about my conflicted opinions on the administration's approach to the reasons for war, especially afterward. I think they may have been deceitful, and I don't like that. But it is also foolish to ignore the good that might come from having gone into Iraq and removing Saddam from power. You do your best to low-brow the ends justify the means, but the fact is, sometimes the ends do justify the means. Is this one of those times? As I said before, I don't know myself. I leave that to wiser folks than me.

But simply labelling it as a no no on a blanket ends don't justify the means just doesn't accept the reality of life, where sometimes choices between two evils need to be taken (such as in November).

As for this statement: "I think that low a level of committment to an honest rationale for war is scary."

I'll just say it is as frightening to me that people will allow atrocities to continue unchecked in other countries and ignore the greater good of mankind, just so they can get their own people in power.

So I guess we both have things to be frightened of.

CR

fhasumi

03-21-2004, 07:09 PM

Has the war in Iraq made the WORLD a safer place?

Has the war in Iraq made AMERICANS more safe?

Maybe we took down an evil man, but I don't think a ton of terrorists were streaming out of Iraq before the war. Now, however, America is more hated than at any other time. Now, however, our "allies" can't trust our word. Now, however, it seems like America has created a million more potential terrorists...

I guess I don't see the "ends" as being all that rosy...

Yeah, we haven't had another major attack in America, but locking the front door and putting bars on the windows doesn't equal more safety if we've quadrupled the number of people outside carrying pitchforks and torches.

dawgfan

03-21-2004, 07:35 PM

So, daWgfan, you don't know the difference?

How about I say the Devil Rays have the most immediate chance of winning the World Series of all small market teams? Does that mean that they are imminently about to win the World Series? That is the kind of leap in logic you guys are making but mis-stating Rumsfeld's statement (above and beyond the context issues you guys want to conveniently ignore, what a shock...).

I think Rumsfeld is as complicit as anyone in the Bush administration for either outright deception or headstrong belief in very poor intelligence, and the whole reasoning to go into Iraq is my primary gripe with the administration.

But if you're going to target a guy as being explicitly dishonest, shouldn't you actually make sure his statement is dishonest? It seems to me about ignoring that simple "more", you are absolving yourself of actually checking the accuracy of your own charges.

For all I know, no governemnt in the world posed more of an immediate threat as Iraq, just as Rumsfeld said. Perhaps that threat was still years away from happening, but if it's ahead of everyone else on the whole "violence-toward-Americans" scale, then that woul still make Rumsfeld's statement literally honest, would it not?

Considering you and others here and expending quite an effort to pick apart a man based on a statement, it surprises me you have no interest in making statement accurately and understanding it completely. Gee, no bias there...

CR

No bias? Really?

Yes, there is room for interpretation when he says that there is no more immediate threat than Iraq - no more immediate relative to everyone else, but not giving an absolute definition. I'm not an idiot, I do understand there is a subtle difference there.

That said, he didn't follow up his opening statement by saying "While Iraq is the most immediate threat, they're not actually a big threat yet." Instead, he rattled off a long list of reasons he thought justified the claim of Iraq as the most immediate threat. He was clearly trying to sell the idea of Iraq as a threat to the U.S. as we were leading up to an invasion of the country. You're actually trying to tell me that in this context, someone hearing that speech doesn't come away from it with the impression that Rumsfeld is describing Iraq as an immediate threat to the U.S.? You don't think that was exactly the intention of the administration?

And frankly, you're hair-splitting. When confronted with the question of whether he'd described Iraq as an "immediate threat" he could've said "I didn't say exactly that - I did say there was no more immediate threat at the time." This would've been weasling in my opinion, but it would've allowed him to avoid this whole issue. Administration critics would've harped on him for it, but it would've been far less damning that what he did which was an outright denial.

I'll just say it is as frightening to me that people will allow atrocities to continue unchecked in other countries and ignore the greater good of mankind, just so they can get their own people in power.

Sorry, but this is a bullshit statement.

By this rationale, you should not support the Bush administration - after all, there are atrocities happening all over the world that they are making no attempt to correct. Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.

I'm just as horrified as anyone else at the brutal regime of Saddam. I was never explicitly against the idea of invading Iraq. I was highly skeptical of the reasoning provided beforehand by the administration (WMD, links to Al-Qaeda), I was concerned by the lack of widespread support among the world community (unlike the first Gulf War) and I didn't see much evidence that we had a well-thought out plan of what to do once the war was over.

I remain unconvinced that this was the best plan executed at the best time and will end in the best result for the Iraqi people (and our soldiers as well).

Dutch

03-21-2004, 07:46 PM

First you have to ask what the root causes of terrorism against the USA are.

Al Qaeda, under Osama Bin Laden started off as an enemy of Saddam Hussein. When he was rebuked in the first Gulf War to lead a Jihad against Iraq, he turned his attention towards his "occupied" homeland.

And 10 years later, Al Qaeda festered into what it was on 9/11. A very rich and powerful terror group that was well funded and won over thousands of 'fighters' to their cause.

But the sales pitch remained the same. "Infidels occupying the two holy cities of the Muslim world. Mecca and Medina."

The USA had a choice to make. Either fight the terrorists even as the continue to multiply, and in fighting them, encourage more to join the fight. Or they could fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and remove their main source of breeding more 'fighters'. The first choice was the no-brainer. The second choice of getting US soldiers out of Saudi Arabia was the hard decision that we are struggling with now.

Iraq is a better place today than it was before the war and it will only get better. We are in a better place than we were before the war, and our situation will only improve as well.

We have no more troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. While this move went largely unnoticed in the western world, it's symbolism in the middle east is powerful. No longer are Al Qaeda clerics going around telling young, impressionable Muslims that America is occupying the holy cities. Now they are telling them that the USA is occupying the Baath parties old stomping grounds.

After you are at least understanding of the US position, then you can ask the direct short term questions fairly.

sachmo71

03-21-2004, 07:58 PM

I'll watch him squirm only if he wears a thong and high heels. Is he a good dancer?

Flasch186

03-21-2004, 08:21 PM

When the head coach of CU footbal, Barnett, stood on the steps and said, on tape, that the "girl was a terrible kicker, awful." and then later apologized saying it was taken out of context, we all laughed. I do the same when someone says to me after I see something that occurs in a timespan of 5 seconds I laugh as well. Its not as if anything he said before or after this makes any difference as to whether it was taken out of context or not.

Person X at :01 says, "We never said bacon comes froma pig"

Person Y at :03 shows quote, "we know that there is no other place bacon could come from but a pig."

Person X at :05 says, "well, we, um, well, "

Damnit!!!!! He shouldve said, "Wow. Well I dont remember saying that. Could I get a copy of that speech as I will need to sit down with my cohorts and go over when it was I said that and why. Regardless of that, and I apologize for my denying it, Saddam Hussein was a Criminal, a genocidal maniac, and the world and Iraq is better off without him."

Before all this I was for the war and still am (on the grounds of protecting races of people from Genocide and there culprits) and I was also a fan of Rumsfeld. at this point I dont trust him, Cheney, Bush, Rice, or Powell (for sitting in front of the UN holding a vial and saying that Iraq has WMD and a bottle this big could kill X numbers of people). Im not promoting Kerry int this thread but simply saying that blindly voting for a group of people who lie, often IMO, is a horrible horrible way to go into a voting booth.

When a republican apologist defends their behavior and the war on Iraq based on the lying it drives me batty. There are arguments out there that I would hear and say, "ok, I see his point". Here let me argue your side without sounding like a brainwashed Rush/Sean/Neil clone:

Exporting Jobs - "The Jobs will turn around and we are working hard everyday in an effort to keep jobs here via trade agreements, holding other country's accountable for labor rights and human rights. We also plan on implementing a large new group of incentives for companies to stay here as opposed to going else where." Or admitting, "This is now a global economy and there is no guarantee that the jobs of the past have to be here or that the jobs of the future wont." SEE

The war in Iraq - "We were wrong, so far about his weapons of mass destruction. they may have been moved elsewhere in the time leading up to the war but there is no proof of that either. As far as we know they might not have been there and we mightve relied too heavily on faulty information. HOWEVER the war in iraq wwas a just one and the world and the middle east is better off for it. We have save millions of lives from the torture chambers and imminent danger." Imminent could be the guy on West Baghdad Avenue who is buying a satellite dish and thus might be put in prison FOREVER. That WAS imminent.

The health care budget plan - "We were misleading to Congress because we truly believe that the costs associated with the plan will benefit the country in the long run and we wanted to have this passed. We understand that we used wrong numbers and for this we apologize but the end reult is good for the people of this country."

The budget deficit - "We know that the country is ina budget deficit and while we wish it was nt like this it is. Therefore we need to work harder on getting a budget more in line with our philosophies on growing the economy and growing the tax abse in an effort to close the gap. When the global threat of terrorism goes away, hopefully sooner rather than later, the budget will be able to come closer to terms agreeable with being balanced."

That is honest. That says the same things as their goals. And it speaks of being genuine even though it may go against what others believe. AND THAT IS HOW OUR LEADERSHIP SHOULD BE!!!!

Dutch

03-21-2004, 08:51 PM

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

There is the entire transcript of the "BIG LIE" episode. Really good stuff in that discussion worth reading.

GrantDawg

03-21-2004, 09:47 PM

yabanci

03-21-2004, 09:58 PM

...the blatantly obvious difference between "imminent threat" and "more imminent threat"...

This is worthy of Bill Clinton.

GrantDawg

03-21-2004, 10:00 PM

This is worthy of Bill Clinton.
Sure, if your a democratic loyalist. I think we all know the difference between the definition of the word "is" and "imminant" and "more imminant."

yabanci

03-21-2004, 10:02 PM

...I think we all know the difference between the definition of the word "is" and "imminant" and "more imminant."

This is worthy of Bill Clinton.

GrantDawg

03-21-2004, 10:03 PM

This is worthy of Bill Clinton.
I love you.

fhasumi

03-21-2004, 10:19 PM

I don't mean this in any partisan way, but Bush and his fat-cat cronies are lying and cheating their way to a reelection, stealing our resources, and murdering our young men and women who bravely fight in Iraq despite being lied to and manipulated by our AWOL commander-in-chief.

edit: Plus his neice is hooked on drugs and his daugthers drink too much, just like daddy used to

But in all honestly, I consider myself an independent.

wig

03-21-2004, 10:22 PM

Does anyone else smell cheerios?

:(

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:24 PM

NO ONE stood up and said they had evidence to the contrary.

Scott Ritter was talking to anybody that would listen to him about how there were no WMDs there. He was blasted as a traitor to the United States of America for it. Now he looks like he was the only one telling the truth.

fhasumi

03-21-2004, 10:42 PM

Yeah, but most of those Hollywood people are total lefties anyways, and would go out of their way to make Bush look bad. I probably wouldn't trust his opinion was unbiased anyways.

Dutch

03-21-2004, 10:57 PM

Scott Ritter was talking to anybody that would listen to him about how there were no WMDs there. He was blasted as a traitor to the United States of America for it. Now he looks like he was the only one telling the truth.

You don't mean this Scott Ritter do you?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mr. Ritter, does Iraq still have prescribed weapons?

Mr. Ritter: "Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability."

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Iraq still has prescribed weapons capability. There needs to be a careful distinction here. Iraq today is challenging the special commission to come up with a weapon and say where is the weapon in Iraq, and yet part of their efforts to conceal their capabilities, I believe, have been to disassemble weapons into various components and to hide these components throughout Iraq. I think the danger right now is that without effective inspections, without effective monitoring, Iraq can in a very short period of time measure the months, reconstitute chemical biological weapons, long-range ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, and even certain aspects of their nuclear weaponization program.

ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And is it your contention that without a significant and realistic threat of military action, Iraq will not allow the investigations to begin again, beyond just the monitoring that's already going on?

WILLIAM SCOTT RITTER, JR.: Well, in this I would only echo the words made by the Secretary-General and other personnel back in February, who said that you couldn't have had the February MOU without the real and credible threat of military force. That's an obvious statement. You can't expect to enforce the law unless you have the means to carry out the enforcement.

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 10:57 PM

Yeah, but most of those Hollywood people are total lefties anyways, and would go out of their way to make Bush look bad. I probably wouldn't trust his opinion was unbiased anyways.

Who are you talking about?

Tekneek

03-21-2004, 11:02 PM

You don't mean this Scott Ritter do you?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/ritter_8-31.html

It may be.

"If Iraq were to have weapons of mass destruction today, they would have had to reconstitute a manufacturing base since 1998, since weapons inspectors left. No one has provided any information of a substantive nature that sustains that allegation. Clearly Iraq had the potential, they had time, they had four years between the time I left and other inspectors left in 1998 and the time that the new UNMOVIC inspectors returned in the fall of 2002."

"I have clearly stated that Iraq could reconstitute a limited capability within six months, so the potential is there for Iraq to have done this, but that potential doesn't automatically translate into reality, and we did have inspectors on the ground for almost four months, and they found nothing. Furthermore they investigated over a dozen sites highlighted by the Central Intelligence Agency as being prime suspects for producing weapons of mass destruction and they have found nothing."

"Clearly Iraq could have hidden something, we know that Iraq tried to hide things from us in the past, but this 5 to 10 percent of unaccounted-for material doesn't mean that Iraq didn't account for it, it means that we can't verify the Iraqi accounting. Iraq claims to have destroyed everything, they just can't prove that they destroyed everything. We can prove that 90 to 95 percent were accounted for."

"But let's talk about that missing material. In the field of biological materials, anthrax. Iraq produced anthrax in liquid bulk form, it has a shelf life of three years under ideal storage conditions, the last known batch came out in 1991. I might be a simple marine, not able to do adequate mathematics, but I think 1991 plus three gives you 1994. What anthrax does Iraq have? None of the anthrax they produced prior to 1991 can be viable today, it simply can't be."

"The nerve agent sarin: there's talk of 1000 tonnes of Iraqi nerve agent unaccounted for, because there's 6500 munitions that we can't account for dating from 1983 to 88. The problem is, that even if Iraq tried to hide that stuff, it can't be viable today because that nerve agent has a shelf-life of five years. So even though we can't give a final disposition of that 5 to 10 per cent that's unaccounted for, I can tell you this; regardless of what happened to it, it's not worth anything today, it can't hurt anyone. So I come back to the basic question: what weapons of mass destruction?"

Bonegavel

03-21-2004, 11:29 PM

The thing that is lost in all of this is that nearly EVERYONE (dems and repubs) is on the record in the years preceeding the war for saying the same things about Sadaam. Least of which was the topic of his WMDs. This cannot be refuted.

So, the biggest question is, if they are not in Iraq now, where the hell are they?

Many were afraid in the wake of the Soviet Union's collaspe that their nukes were going to fall into terrosit's hands and I think this is in the same ballpark. The media should focus on the fact that all signs pointed to WMDs and with their absence, should be concerned with finding out where they are now.

yabanci

03-21-2004, 11:30 PM

Rumsfeld can't find them. We're SOL.

fhasumi

03-21-2004, 11:43 PM

Rumsfeld couldn't find his ass with a ten-foot pole.

Tekneek

03-22-2004, 12:04 AM

The media should focus on the fact that all signs pointed to WMDs and with their absence, should be concerned with finding out where they are now.

The media? How about the government? If we assume that Iraq did have these "weapons of mass destruction," is it better to know that Iraq has them and try to track what they do with them, or invade and make those WMDs scatter off to parts unknown? If they did exist, he obviously felt that transferring them to these unknown parties would be more beneficial to him than using them to keep himself in power. This, to me, creates a far more dangerous global situation than what we had previously.

dawgfan

03-22-2004, 12:39 AM

The sad thing is both CR and I have agreed with the fact that administration was deceitful in the days leading up to war, and we both said we didn't like it. Yet when we point out the blatantly obvious difference between "imminent threat" and "more imminent threat" we are somehow blindly partisan. I personally think Rumsfield is a bit slimy and he is not someone I would not blindly protect, but in this case those of you making a lot of hay on this are just wrong. Blind partisanship happens on both sides of the aisle.

Grant, I recognize and appreciate that you and Chief don't blindly follow everything this administration pushes.

However, in this case I can't believe you guys are splitting hairs in this way. From a literal perspective, you guys are correct - he didn't say "Iraq is an immediate threat". He said "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

He said this in the time before the invasion of Iraq, when the U.S. was building its case for the war. He said this and proceeded to enumerate a litany of charges against Iraq and Hussein designed to back up his statement. So while he didn't literally say they were an immediate threat, everything surrounding his statements points to that conclusion - how could anyone listening to that speech at that time not come to that conclusion?

It's like someone in a crowded theater shouting "It's very likely going to be extremely warm in here in the near future due to chemical reactions!" and then denying he ever cried "Fire!" Technically he'd be correct, but the implication was clear.

The Clinton references are due to the fact that he was known for this kind of equivacating, and it drove his critics mad as they called B.S. on him. Hence the comparisons to this situation.

NoMyths

03-22-2004, 12:54 AM

It's like someone in a crowded theater shouting "It's very likely going to be extremely warm in here in the near future due to chemical reactions!" and then denying he ever cried "Fire!" Technically he'd be correct, but the implication was clear.It's actually even more explicit than that, because he sets the language signifiers that folks will hear and use. Perhaps the better analogy would be to say that it's like someone in a crowded theater shouting "This theater has a better chance to catch fire than any other theater in the world!" and then claiming that he never meant that it could catch fire, but that the folks in the theater are better off for capturing the manager. :)

Vegas Vic

03-22-2004, 03:38 AM

But, of course, Cinton bombed an aspirin factory-- killing hundreds and denying countries their only access to, what are to them, medicines that mean the difference between life and death for tens of thousands-- to distract the populace from one of his personal scandals and no democrats ever say anything about that.

Let’s see. I guess you’re siding with the Sudanese information minister’s claim on state-run television that the Al Shifa site hit by U.S. warplanes was a pharmaceutical factory. (By the way, Sudan was then, and still is on the U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism). At the time of the strike, they were staunchly allied with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. There are a whole host of terrorist groups still there operating. In addition to al Queda, they’ve also harbored Abu Nidal, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Now, back to your and the information minister’s assertions.

First, U.S. intelligence reports indicated that bin Laden was a major financier of the plant and was potentially overseeing the production of empta, which is subsequently turned into VX nerve gas, the deadliest such gas in existence.

Second, when you have armed guards outside "an aspirin" factory, that’s a dead giveaway that you’re not dealing with vitamin C.

Third, the factory's web site offered no medicines for sale. Pharmaceuticals that could be used to produce legitimate medicines also can be used to produce precursors for chemical weapons. But it seems kind of strange for a pharmaceutical factory not be marketing its products, doesn’t it?

Fourth, soil samples collected at the plant contained traces of empta. In fact, more WMD-related chemicals were found at Al Shifa than have been found in all of Iraq.