Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask about Iraq. I asked about Al Qaeda and 9/11.

In other words, you want to change the topic from your original post, because you can no longer support your original assertion that Rumsfeld's denial (that he ever said there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks) was a lie. It wasn't a lie, you can't support YOUR claim that it was a lie, so now you want to change the topic to avoid admitting you were wrong. How... brave.

 

[CFLarsen]

Could you provide evidence for this? Thanks.

edit: "he" is Rumsfeld.

Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.

Post #9 was in response to the claim in you post(#1).

Not evidence enough for you?

And then, you saw the New York Times article. That article is wrong? A hoax, perhaps?

The PBS article is also wrong? The Bush Administration never thought that Al Qaeda was behind 9-11?

 

[punchdrunk]

It came up recently in another thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1619855#post1619855
Here's a shortened version of what I said in that thread.
McGovern gave an interview in Feb. 2004, where he talks about Tenet, Bush, 9/11, and the Iraq war:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/mcgovern.html
He made some wrong predictions about Tenet, based in part on what he thought was Tenet's ability to blackmail Bush with a smoking gun in the form of the infamous August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. That PDB was released a few months later, and while it may not look that great for Bush, it sure as hell isn't the smoking gun that McGovern thought it would be. According to Tricky, McGovern said in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper that there are memos which prove Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. I doubt McGovern has even seen whatever memos he's refering to, and is probably just as mistaken about whatever their content is. So he's not exactly a reliable source about what's really going on.

But from a strategic standpoint, the problem with backing McGovern goes even deeper. McGovern also thinks that the war in Iraq was waged for the benefit of Israel, by people in the administration who are more loyal to Israel than to the US. He's also rabidly partisan, referring to neocons as fascists, and comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire under Hitler. He's basically fallen into the cliche of what an ultra-leftist anti-war protester should be (compare Bush to Hitler, blame it on the Jews, rant about conspiracy theories, etc) - even if any of his criticisms turn out to be valid, he's exactly the sort of person you DON'T want making your case for you, because a lot of people are going to discount him because he's a wingnut. And you don't even need him to make any case against Bush OR Rumsfeld, because frankly, there is NO new information he's actually bringing to the table. All he represents is argument from authority (the press loves to trot out how he was in the CIA for 27 years, etc), but that won't hold up long under scrutiny. Don't back the loon just because he's the enemy of your enemy. That didn't work out for the anti-war crowd with Cindy Sheehan, and it won't work with McGovern.

Thank you for the information. I agree with you that the comparisons to Hitler, Fascists and the Reichstag fire are over the top. I would like to make one minor point - McGovern stated:

The real reasons for the Iraq War, he says, are to be found online at the neo-conservative website The Project for a New American Century. "And I would simply add, not as an afterthought, but as a core part of this whole calculus, that this war was fought as much for Israeli strategic objectives as it was for American strategic objectives. As a matter of fact, the people running our policy toward Iraq have great difficulty distinguishing between the two."

Saying that he "blamed in it on the Jews" tends to make one believe he is anti-Semitic or believes in some sort of great Jewish consipiracy, when I think that's not the case. It's not hard to imagine the US and Israeli objectives for the Middle East are similar, in fact I think they should be. But one can criticize those similarities, question their best interest, and not hate Jews in the process.

 

[CFLarsen]

In other words, you want to change the topic from your original post, because you can no longer support your original assertion that Rumsfeld's denial (that he ever said there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks) was a lie. It wasn't a lie, you can't support YOUR claim that it was a lie, so now you want to change the topic to avoid admitting you were wrong. How... brave.

Who is blamed for the 9-11 attacks, if not Al Qaeda?

 

[Grammatron]

Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.



And then, you saw the New York Times article. That article is wrong? A hoax, perhaps?

The PBS article is also wrong? The Bush Administration never thought that Al Qaeda was behind 9-11?

Your opening post claimed Rumsfeld said there was "Bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks" Yes or No.

 

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by rhoadp View Original:
Could you provide evidence for this? Thanks.

edit: "he" is Rumsfeld.

Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.

I have. I have not found one instance where he denied that he claimed a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you could quote the statement from the transcript, please do so, it would be most helpful.

 

[Evolver]

Are you calling me part of the Bush propaganda machine? I did some searching on McGovern, came up with that transcript, and came to the conclusion that he's a whackjob rather on my own - no orders from Rove or anything. If I'm part of the Bush propaganda machine, I'm getting paid awfully poorly for my services. So from where I'm sitting, it's not about making all of Bush's critics into wingnuts (not all of them are), it's about McGovern actually BEING a whackjob.

As for the questions McGovern asked Rumsfeld, sure, his loony status alone doesn't disqualify the questions themselves. That wasn't quite my point, though: basically everything he asked has been asked before by plenty of other people, there's nothing new involved here. The only reason this is a story is because the press thinks McGovern's identity makes it a story, and I'm saying that's a dangerous path for Rumsfeld critics to follow. Go ahead and keep on asking whatever questions you like of Bush and the rest of the administration. But using McGovern as the tool to do it is going to backfire, because he IS a loon.

I believe you are wrong. The story is a story because someone was allowed to ask the questions of Rumsfeld that many of us would like to ask.

This administration has a history of filtering possible dissenters out of these sorts or gatherings. The focus should not be "is McGovern a loon", but should be "why did Rumsfeld respond as he did?". The identity of the questioner is completely irrelevant in this case.

And if you thought I was calling you part of the propaganda machine, I apologize for the misconception. My intention was to point out that anyone who criticizes Bush somehow gets painted as a loony, from Joe Wilson, to Wesley Clark, to Cindy Sheehan. It is very easy, especially when dealing with someone who is not a politician by trade, to scour through things they have said, and come up with something that doesn't make sense. I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.

 

[Manny]

Saying that he "blamed in it on the Jews" tends to make one believe he is anti-Semitic or believes in some sort of great Jewish consipiracy, when I think that's not the case. It's not hard to imagine the US and Israeli objectives for the Middle East are similar, in fact I think they should be. But one can criticize those similarities, question their best interest, and not hate Jews in the process.

Remember John Conyers' "mock impeachment?" The one with those anti-Jewish flyers that Howard Dean had to disassociate the party from? Yeah, McGovern was there. He said that we went to war at Israel's bidding. Several other sources (though less linkworthy than the Post) reported that he repeated the lie about an Israeli company having advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. That lie also appeared on the flyers.

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your opening post claimed Rumsfeld said there was "Bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks" Yes or No.

Yes. He did.

Unless you want to claim that he doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks.

Are you claiming that?

 

[Evolver]

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

No one is calling him an antiwar leader. He is no one's champion. He asked the right questions at the right time, that's all. You are diverting the issue.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have. I have not found one instance where he denied that he claimed a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you could quote the statement from the transcript, please do so, it would be most helpful.

Post #17.

 

[Ziggurat]

This administration has a history of filtering possible dissenters out of these sorts or gatherings. The focus should not be "is McGovern a loon", but should be "why did Rumsfeld respond as he did?". The identity of the questioner is completely irrelevant in this case.

Change that to "should be irrelevant in this case" and I'll agree. But I don't think it will be - I think his identity will get plenty of play in the press about this exchange.

My intention was to point out that anyone who criticizes Bush somehow gets painted as a loony, from Joe Wilson, to Wesley Clark, to Cindy Sheehan.

You've got it all wrong. There's much more variety than just loon when it comes to attacks on Bush critics. In your list above, Wilson is a liar, Clark is a Clintonite, and only Sheehan is the loon. Rove works hard to personalize those attacks, and it hurts his feelings when people don't appreciate the effort he puts into it

 

[Grammatron]

Yes. He did.

Wrong, as per the article of New York Times: Rumsfel not only claimed no such thing but the administration said they have found no links between Sadam and 9/11. Did you read that?

 

[Evolver]

Change that to "should be irrelevant in this case" and I'll agree. But I don't think it will be - I think his identity will get plenty of play in the press about this exchange.

Exactly!

 

[punchdrunk]

Remember John Conyers' "mock impeachment?" The one with those anti-Jewish flyers that Howard Dean had to disassociate the party from? Yeah, McGovern was there. He said that we went to war at Israel's bidding. Several other sources (though less linkworthy than the Post) reported that he repeated the lie about an Israeli company having advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. That lie also appeared on the flyers.

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

Links are always good, and I appreciate it. I will quote the relevant part about McGovern:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

If he truly said that "Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," then I will agree with you that he belongs in the batcave. However, as we've seen from the OP, quoted words can be taken drastically out of context, so I'm not quite ready to put a bow on him and send him off to the funny farm. However, I do feel his involvement in this "proceeding" and some of the other things he has said puts his motives in considerable question.

 

[punchdrunk]

Post #17.

Claus, that post is of him claiming a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not denying he made that link.

 

[CFLarsen]

Wrong, as per the article of New York Times: Rumsfel not only claimed no such thing

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld said that recently declassified intelligence reports about suspected ties between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, including the presence of senior members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in "recent periods," were "factual" and "exactly accurate."

You are in denial.

but the administration said they have found no links between Sadam and 9/11. Did you read that?

....despite earlier assurances. Did you read that?

Are you claiming that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no.

 

[punchdrunk]

If he truly said that "Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," then I will agree with you that he belongs in the batcave. However, as we've seen from the OP, quoted words can be taken drastically out of context, so I'm not quite ready to put a bow on him and send him off to the funny farm. However, I do feel his involvement in this "proceeding" and some of the other things he has said puts his motives in considerable question.

To further clarify this: I would like to see him quoted as saying "Bush was doing the bidding...", not just someone else saying he said it, because, as is all too obvious in this thread, what is said and what someone says was said are two different things.*

*jeez I sound like freaking Rumsfeld now...

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, that post is of him claiming a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not denying he made that link.

Sorry, my bad. I misread you.

The issue isn't whether he has denied that there is a link between AQ and Iraq. The issue is the he denies that he ever said he had "bulletproof" evidence of a link between Iraq and AQ.







OMG!! I admitted an error!! I am soooo sorry to disappoint the people who claim I never admit to errors!

 

[Grammatron]

Sorry, my bad. I misread you.

The issue isn't whether he has denied that there is a link between AQ and Iraq. The issue is the he denies that he ever said he had "bulletproof" evidence of a link between Iraq and AQ.

Wrong.

Your claim

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

NYT Articles from that day: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."...

"Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States. Some intelligence and law enforcement officials said today..."

Conclusion: Your claim is wrong.