Rumsfeld caught lying

Remove all ads!

This video is a rare thing of beauty:

www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Well, a conservative caught lying isn't all that rare... but it's still beautiful!

 

I think the best part is even when faced with direct quotes to the contrary he still dances around the subject and acts like he did not say these things.

That is one great link.

This realy is unbelievable , I mean who does think is going to believe him.You can pull qoutes like the ones in the video forever.

They realy hammered that point home during the build up to the war,about Saddam being a clear and presant danger I mean.Heck I even believed them and supported the war.

I don't see how they can lie about something that is going to be so easy to prove he is lying about.

 

They lie because they think they can get away with it, even if they're caught. Too often, that's been true, but it finally seems to be catching up to them.

 

Since Blackthorne TA asked to post any further comment on the video ( http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000760) in this post, I do so.

I agree with the reasoning that if under the assumption that the world was a peaceful place and everyone lived in harmony, one would say that there is no greater or immediate threat than Iraq, it would not necessarily mean that Iraq poses a threat.

I made my point under the premise that there is a threat to the USA after 9/11 and that a statement like Rumsfeld's in this case is about Iraq compared to other possible threats. Thus declaring that there is no greater or immediate threat than Iraq (under the assumption that there is a threat) would indicate that Iraq poses an immediate threat.

 

Regardless, Rumsfeld is correct in that this an urban legend created by the Democrats, and the press even strengthened the point for him.

So they found 2 obscure quotes from Rumsfeld that have the 2 words that the Democrats claim that Republicans used to scare us all into going along with the war.

2 quotes that only meet the criteria because the 2 words were used, not because of the intent of the message that was being conveyed

Sorry, but this undermines the argument that the Bush administration screaming "imminent threat" from the rooftops.

 

I think his folklore about the folklore was... de-folklored in a de-folkloring way. I think the urban legend that Rummy used "imminent thread" has been shown as not urban legend. Bum-Bum-Rumsfeld himself didn't deny that he said that after getting himself quoted.

I clearly remember having seen a clip with one from the heritage foundation, repeating "clear and present danger" over and over again. With a British accent, I may add. So, I think it was that way. But that's ofcourse only my view and that wasn't someone from the federal goverment.

But you were right, the clip was to short. I wanted see how Rummy gets himself out of there (i.e. sweat some more), and the old lefty Tommy Friedmann getting on with ... asking questions.

 

From BTA's post in the thread he locked:

No SP mod/admin has ever made a more ridiculous statement than the one above.

Now, what does my statement above mean? Does it mean that mods/admins make ridiculous statements from time to time, and BTA's was the granddaddy of them all? Or does it mean that no mod/admin has ever said something stupid and therefore I'm not really calling BTA's statement ridiculous? Using BTA's (and Darkwolf's) logic, it's the latter. And yet I'm willing to bet that everyone believes I meant the former.

For the record, I'm just using this as an example to hopefully bring a bit closer to home the flaw in BTA's and Darkwolf's comments. In actual fact, BTA's statement was no more ridiculous than any other statement that a mod or admin has ever made.

 

Actually, BTA, you've just proven my point. Just as I know how most people would take my comment, I would argue that Rumsfeld would have known how people would interpret his comment. So if he intended it to be taken differently, why did he phrase it as he did? Answer - he didn't intend it to be taken differently. So either he really believed that Iraq was an immediate threat, or he was intentionally misleading the American public.

Ignorance or fraud - your choice.

 

Normally, I'd agree with you 100%; the clip, in and of itself, was obviously intended to discredit Rumsfeld, and, as has been said, does not provide his further clarification.

Having said that, IMO, given the events of 9/11, and given the pressure on the administration to come up with the "bad guy", it seems pretty clear to me how his statement was intended to be interpreted - that Iraq was an immediate theat that needed to be elimated.

What are you - a troublemaker?

 

This is not about logic nor is it about reason; nor debating. This about the truth. It's too bad that integrity from government officials means so little. To those who have no regard for the truth this about one party attacking another. That much is clear. Trying to use pretzel logic and other convoluted paths to not see the truth is the political order of the day.

It is a genuine shame that some have more allegiance to party politics than the good of the nation. Washington warned that this might be the order of the day.

For those who REALLY care about the whole dialogue that took place on Face the Nation, the transcripts can be viewed online. Personally, I am disappointed by those who make feeble excuses for those who lack character. It was rank when Bill Clinton wagged his finger and lied to the American people. This is rank as well. Gentlemen, character matters.

For those who claim that this man's comments were taken out of context, look if you dare.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/ftn/main3460.shtml


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/14/ftn/main606171.shtml

 

Those that we elect as our leaders have to make decisions for us based upon the information they have available to them at the time. It is the benefit of hindsight that deludes us to believe that we would make a more beneficial decisions than they did.

 

Much like the legal system, "truth" is often only what we can logically infer based on the circumstances and facts we have available. And in this case, the circumstances and facts (as previously described in this thread) clearly indicate the meaning of Rumsfeld's statement.

Well, that's true, I guess, but it's also totally irrelevant to the topic at hand (nice try at a smoke screen, though - it doesn’t take away from the belief that, contrary to what some are saying, Rumsfeld clearly meant at the time that he believed Iraq to be an immediate threat.)

[ March 29, 2004, 05:23: Message edited by: Splunge ]

 

Why wouldn't he believe that Iraq was a threat to the stability of the Middle East and even an indirect threat to the US? Iraq was infiltrating/turning inspectors, destroying buildings that were scheduled for inspection, and we had satellite photos of trucks leaving buildings that were scheduled for inspection. Anything that threatens the stability of the Middle East threatens the world economy.

If you do your best to look like and act like a violent criminal, don't be surprised when the police knock down your door, even if your really are clean as the driven snow (hardly a description for Saddam).

The actual point that the Democrats are trying to drive home is that the Bush administration mislead everyone to believe that Saddam was an "imminent threat" to attack the US, and used fear or anger over 9/11 to gather support to attack Iraq. But the facts just don't support this.

I do believe that Saddam would have been willing to provide hazardous substances to terrorists to be used in an attack, and I believe that Saddam maintained the ability to rapidly create such substances even after he disposed/dispensed (not necessarily destroyed) of the ones that he already had. That said, Iraq did not have the ability to directly strike at the US. They would have had to employ some other group. I can't locate it, but I remember Rumsfeld stating that same sentiment on TV prior to the commencement of the liberation of Iraq.

Others may feel that they were mislead in this manner, but I think that a lot of the people who feel this way are listening way too much of the out of context quotes, and flat out figments of imagination that the Democrats are repeating time and time again. It is far too easy to be mislead by arguments made in the present about occurrences from well over a year ago.

That said, if the roles were reversed, and the Democrats were holding the majority in Congress and the Presidency, the Republicans would be employing the same tactics that the Democrats are using today. Ain't politics grand!

 

I really don't understand what's the big deal about this (except that the video-clip is really amusing), politicians tend to lie and exaggerate things, not like this would be anything new. IMO this whole thread consists of just splitting hairs.

 

Darkwolf, at the risk of coming across as flogging a dead horse here, and with all due respect, I think you’re getting away from the point of the topic.

This thread isn’t about whether or not Rumsfeld et al considered Iraq to be a real threat at the time, or whether they were just looking for an excuse to attack Iraq and pull attention away from their failure to capture Bin Laden. That, and the related politics you refer to, is a whole different discussion.

Instead, this topic is about the fact that Rumsfeld is now denying saying at the time that Iraq was a threat, when the evidence clearly indicates that he did state that Iraq was an immediate threat.

Edit: @Morgoroth - the "big deal" is that the Administration is now trying very hard to say that Iraq was invaded for reasons other than an "immediate threat", when at the time that was the exact reason put forward. It comes down to trying to mislead the public, which I for one think is a big deal. Yes, it happens all the time, but that doesn't mean we should just sit back and accept it with a smile.

 

Well, dodging a question is an art. The a and o of a professional politician is to know when and how to start dodging. Vice versa the a and o of a professionan political journalist is to know when and how politicians start to dodge. Just good professional work from both sides, Rummy dodges, Friedmann catches. The folklore-evasion really got me.

But at least, Rummy is conceding a bit down the transcript(still about the same point), that US-intelligence has to learn some lessons now ("learning-process").

Sad but true... or ... nearly to good to be true... depends on personal view. I even think that's the secret of success of a certain administration.

I finish this with an excerpt of one of my most beloved sites on the net: here

here
And I think this is just of those lines in the way of.. make no mistake, there is no way that you get the meaning of what I am saying. No, really, make no mistake, I never mean what I say. If you think you understood, you really made a mistake.