Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

Now that I really think this through, I think Rumsfeld was honest and forthright and fair with the American people he serves. I think people have been too hard on him. He knows better than generals about how many troops to send in. He really believed that Hussein and Al Qaida were plotting attacks against the U.S. He was sincerely afraid that Iraq was an imminent threat to my country.

People please: GET OFF HIS BACK!!

It's true.
 
I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?
 
I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?

No, I'm certain I couldn't do the job.

Rob, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job? Do you think he always spoke honestly with the American people? Do you think he was wrong to ignore the military leaders who recommended more troops at the start of the invasion?
 
Yup.

Where? Funny you didn't mention the following article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.
 
No, I'm certain I couldn't do the job.

Rob, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job? Do you think he always spoke honestly with the American people? Do you think he was wrong to ignore the military leaders who recommended more troops at the start of the invasion?

Yes, maybe, maybe.
 
I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?
Now you are showing your true colors as a RummyBot: You are using the "The soldiers there donned protective gear. They believed it!" ruse.

Wake up, man. You are being used.
 
You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.


(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

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

Oops.



Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

Provide the link and I'll go away. It's not like I care.
 
Now you are showing your true colors as a RummyBot: You are using the "The soldiers there donned protective gear. They believed it!" ruse.

Wake up, man. You are being used.

Assumes facts not in evidence...again.

Let's start here:


(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

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

Oops.



Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.
 
You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.

Donald Rumsfeld had a link to Saddam Hussein. Maybe the two collaborated on nasty deeds? It's true.
 
You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.

Maybe, but then the whole argument becomes a debate around semantics. There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it. They would always say that he was linked to Al Qaida, or they would link the Iraq war with the war on terror. But they never came out and consistently said that he had a link or a hand in 9/11.
 
Maybe, but then the whole argument becomes a debate around semantics. There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it. They would always say that he was linked to Al Qaida, or they would link the Iraq war with the war on terror. But they never came out and consistently said that he had a link or a hand in 9/11.
No, not "maybe".

It is a fact that Rumsfeld lied.

And that lie was pivotal to the decision to go to war.

Do you dispute this?
 
There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it.

Yep, they were pretty shrewd and effective in misleading the nation--"catapulting the propaganda" one might say.
 
No, not "maybe".

It is a fact that Rumsfeld lied.

And that lie was pivotal to the decision to go to war.

Do you dispute this?

Rumsfeld has lied before, but what are you claiming he lied about?
 
-I feel like playing semantics today.

One of the few intellectually honest statements in this whole stupid dispute between CFL and Rob Lister, et al.

Each side acts like they are holders of absolute knowledge with regard to semantics and that somehow repeating the same logic over and over will convince people that their interpretation of ambiguos language is the only possible correct one.

Meanwhile back on the farm, Jimtron asked:
Does anyone here doubt that the Administration tried to associate Hussein and 9/11 in the minds of Americans, and that this was misleading and dishonest (even though they may or may not have explicitly stated such a thing)?

I don't. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in a concious, planned effort to mislead people with regard to the evidence for the justification of a preemptive war against Iraq.

The more interesting question to me is why they lied. I suspect now, that the decision had been made to invade Iraq because it was part of a kind of neocon ideology and that there was nothing that Hussein could have done to prevent the invasion exept perhaps resigning. The lying was justified in the minds of Bushco because the war was justified even if what they were lying about wasn't true. I also think the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco radically underestimated the difficulties of a post war Iraq and that part of the reason the lies were justified in their minds was that the Iraq war would be over quickly and all the resulting benefits of a democratic, stable, peaceful Iraq would be so great that nobody would remember the lies used to justify the war.
 
Jeebus Christ, read the bloody thread!

I have, but most of it is too convoluted and repetitious. You started playing semantics after people pointed out that the article did not say what you claimed it did. Now I have no idea what your position is.
 
The more interesting question to me is why they lied. I suspect now, that the decision had been made to invade Iraq because it was part of a kind of neocon ideology and that there was nothing that Hussein could have done to prevent the invasion exept perhaps resigning. The lying was justified in the minds of Bushco because the war was justified even if what they were lying about wasn't true. I also think the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco radically underestimated the difficulties of a post war Iraq and that part of the reason the lies were justified in their minds was that the Iraq war would be over quickly and all the resulting benefits of a democratic, stable, peaceful Iraq would be so great that nobody would remember the lies used to justify the war.

I agree. I'm guessing they lied because they were afraid if they didn't use fear tactics, people wouldn't go for the invasion. Bush claimed he didn't want to nation-build. If people were told the truth, that this was a war of choice that (according to Bush and the neocons) would be advantageous to the U.S. and the rest of the world, but that there were serious risks involved (enormous financial costs, American lives lost, increasing rather than decreasing terrorism, destabilizing the region, etc.) it's likely that Congress and U.S. citizens wouldn't support it. So they scared people by implying 9/11 connections, mushroom clouds, and the like. And the scare tactics worked.

If they had good reason to go to war, why didn't they just put forth that argument in an honest way? Maybe because it was an idea that wouldn't stand up on its own merit.
 
Where was this evidence? I missed it. The Times article says that Rumsfeld claimed Saddam had links to Al Qaida, not 9-11.

CFLarsen thinks that's the same thing. He can't understand that the claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda (what Rumsfeld claimed) is a DIFFERENT claim than Iraq having ties to 9/11 (what Rumsfeld never said). So you can only understand CF's "argument" if you start from that broken axiom, which is that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda automatically means a connection between Iraq and everything Al Qaeda does. That's absurd, of course, but there you have it.

I've abandoned the thread because it's just become CF defending that axiom without even being able to explain coherently that that's where the breakdown is coming from.
 
Rumsfeld has lied before, but what are you claiming he lied about?

Here Rumsfeld admits saying something that was untrue:

The record shows that in the weeks preceding the war, Rumsfeld flatly claimed to know the whereabouts of Hussein's weapons arsenal. On March 30, 2003 -- 11 days into the war -- Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," he said, according to an official Pentagon transcript. "The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

His comments in Atlanta were in line with an attempted revision six months after the war started. On Sept. 10, 2003, Rumsfeld addressed the issue in remarks at the National Press Club. "I said, 'We know they're in that area.' I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment."

Six months before the invasion, on Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld testified about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld said Hussein "has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons ... large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons," according to the committee's transcript.

That theme continued right up to the weeks before the invasion. On Jan. 20, 2003, Rumsfeld told an audience at the Reserve Officers Association that Hussein "has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism and possibly smallpox." (bold added) - San Francisco Chronicle, May 6, 2006

He said "We know where they are," but he really didn't know where they were. The last part of the quote above may or may not be a lie--anyone know if they found the weapons he names?

Cheney said: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?
 
Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?

They did tell Kay where they were. But Kay found nothing. The weapons inspectors spent 5 months in Iraq before the start of the war, and inspected hundreds of suspected sites. In March 2003, they even called our intelligence 'garbage'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

So there was serious doubt even before the war about whether Saddam had WMD.

edit: whoops, sorry. Kay came after the invasion. I mean UN inspectors, not Kay. My mistake
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom