Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[HarryKeogh]

So now you're claiming that you've shown evidence when it's clear you haven't. I should have known it was going to come down to this, you've used the same highly dishonest tactic in previous threads:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38212

I'm sure you remember that thread, Claus, where you claimed that a girl was harmed, but provided no evidence over 19 pages? You lost a lot of credibility in that thread by claiming to provide phantom evidence. BTW, if anyone has not read that thread, I highly recommend it, it's very funny.

Claus, so what evidence did you have to back up your claim that that child was physically harmed? I know it's been awhile but we shouldn't let time let people off the hook of backing up their claims with evidence. You won't let SteveGrenard's claims go after years so I'm sure you won't mind it when it comes down to you. What was your evidence for that claim?

 

[Rob Lister]

Nada, zilch, zip, zero.

or...already posted in previous threads that don't exist.

The exact same tactic used by woos except they don't defend their wooism so much.

Clause must have a higher cause.

 

[HarryKeogh]

You do realize that you are saying that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11?

sigh...Yes, I'm going to marry a carrot.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yes, Claus, they were behind 9/11. But you refuse to even acknowledge the point being made that a connection to Al Qaeda isn't synonymous with a connection to everything Al Qaeda has done. You won't even argue that it IS synonymous and that I'm wrong on that point: you merely assume it's axiomatic. In other words, you don't even know how to debate me - you're obsessed with proving a question that was never in doubt, because you think pointing that out is enough to prove you right. But it isn't, Claus, because that's not the point of disagreement between us. You're unbelievably blinkered when you debate, Claus. I don't think I've met anyone else on this message board so incapable of understanding the logic behind the argument of an opponent. There's a reason people get frustrated with you, and the problem isn't them. It's you.

You have completely missed the point. The point is not what Al Qaeda really is or has done. The point is how Al Qaeda is used as a reason to go to war.

The war on terror is being fought against Islamic terrorists. Your inability to understand that Al Qaeda is but a subset of that larger group (whose threat to us comes from their subscription to a violent, supremacist, and expansionist ideology, not merely their membership in a particular organizational structure) betrays your own ignorance, not those who have defended Rumsfeld. If you honestly never got that answer before, it's most likely because people don't have the patience to deal with your refusal to actually engage in debate, rather than just repetition of nonsequitors which you have somehow convinced yourself are actually obvious logical progressions.

Wrong. The war on terror is fought against terrorists, period. On CIA's site, you can find the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism (Adobe Acrobat® PDF), February 2003.

The document starts with the reason behind the War on Terror: The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in Washington, D.C., New York City and Pennsylvania are described as acts of war against the United States. And then:

The enemy is not one person. It is not a single political regime. Certainly it is not a religion. The enemy is terrorism - premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents. Those who employ terrorism, regardless of their specific secular or religious objectives, strive to subvert the rule of law and effecct change through violence and fear. (Page 1)

On page 7-8, Al Qaeda is singled out, primarily because of Al Qaeda being responsible for 9-11.

It is ludicrous to try and argue that Al Qaeda and 9/11 aren't being used synonymously, not just by Rumsfeld, but throughout in the Bush Administration. But when Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda-9/11 with reference to "bulletproof evidence" that turns out to be bogus, and Rumsfeld etc. tries to worm away from that, then we have a major problem on our hands.

Because then, we have been led into war on false premises.

 

[Jocko]

It is ludicrous to try and argue that Al Qaeda and 9/11 aren't being used synonymously

And here we have the crux of your pathetic little argument, finally declared in clear terms after SEVEN FRIGGIN' PAGES OF THE USUAL BULLSH!T. And as per usual, the point relies on the entire world making the same intuitive leap you do. I say it's an intuitive leap, not a logical one, because you're obviously unable to produce anything more substantial than your opinion to back it up.

In other words, it is ludicrous to question your judgment.
It's ludicrous to question your sagacity.
It's ludicrous to question your very sanity.

Claus, I'm proud to fall into your ludicrous category.

Anyone else who's content to wear that label, made proudly in Denmark, please share your support. Let the ludicrous masses be heard.

 

[Ziggurat]

You have completely missed the point. The point is not what Al Qaeda really is or has done. The point is how Al Qaeda is used as a reason to go to war.

No, CF. The point was whether or not Rumsfeld lied that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. Can't you even remember your own point?

It is ludicrous to try and argue that Al Qaeda and 9/11 aren't being used synonymously, not just by Rumsfeld, but throughout in the Bush Administration.

I'm sorry, but your inability to comprehend complex relationships and arguments with more than one step, or to parse language more complex than "Dick and Jane", doesn't mean others can't. The only thing ludicrous here is blaming Bush for your own intellectual shortcomings.

But when Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda-9/11

Again with that: it's only in your OWN fevered imagination that these are synonymous. The rest of us are able to understand the difference between a connection to an organization and a connection to a particular action by that organization.

 

[Manny]

And here we have the crux of your pathetic little argument, finally declared in clear terms after SEVEN FRIGGIN' PAGES OF THE USUAL BULLSH!T. And as per usual, the point relies on the entire world making the same intuitive leap you do.

Just curious -- how many times do you intend to get out here to page seven? He does this sufficiently frequently that the conclusion that he is either a troll or very very stupid is inescapable. So why play?

 

[Jocko]

Just curious -- how many times do you intend to get out here to page seven? He does this sufficiently frequently that the conclusion that he is either a troll or very very stupid is inescapable. So why play?

I enjoy watching retards attempting mental gymnastics. So sue me. Of course, you raise a good point, which is why I generally don't bother with pages 2-6.

 

[CFLarsen]

No, CF. The point was whether or not Rumsfeld lied that Iraq was involved with the 9/11 attacks. Can't you even remember your own point?

That is the point: Rumsfeld says one thing, and we go to war, based on that. When it turns out he was wrong, he doesn't want to fess up to his old claims.

I'm sorry, but your inability to comprehend complex relationships and arguments with more than one step, or to parse language more complex than "Dick and Jane", doesn't mean others can't. The only thing ludicrous here is blaming Bush for your own intellectual shortcomings.

I notice that you completely ignored the reference to the CIA report. Instead you tell me I'm too dumb to understand anything.

It may convince your friends, but not me.

Again with that: it's only in your OWN fevered imagination that these are synonymous. The rest of us are able to understand the difference between a connection to an organization and a connection to a particular action by that organization.

Ah, the attempt of character assassination and marginalizing your opponent, while ignoring the points - and evidence.

Why don't you try your hand at my arguments, instead of my person?

 

[Jocko]

Instead you tell me I'm too dumb to understand anything.

At least there's evidence to support that hypothesis, which is more than one can say for your argument that Rumsfeld said something he clearly did not.

 

[Mark]

Ah, the lengths the Bushies will go to absolve their fearless leader. Just got back from a few days, so if someone already posted these, I apologize:

"The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror...We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." [Remarks by the President, 5/1/03]

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/bush_administration_once_again_links_iraq_and_9-11.html

On Meet the Press, Vice President Cheney stated, "If we're successful in Iraq...we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." [NBC's Meet the Press, 9/14/03]

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/bush_administration_once_again_links_iraq_and_9-11.html

Rumsfeld stated that although he could not estimate the cost of a war with Iraq, "It would cost a heck of a lot less than 9-11 cost and 9-11 would cost a heck of a lot less than a chemical or biological 9-11." [AP, 2/13/03]

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/bush_administration_once_again_links_iraq_and_9-11.html

"The enemies we face in Iraq today come from the mold similar to those who killed 3,000 people on September 11th." --Donald Rumsfeld"[ABC News 7/1/05]

http://www.democrats.org/a/p/bush_administration_once_again_links_iraq_and_9-11.html

"Well...Iraq was not the first stage of the war. The first was on September 11." ---Tom Ridge"[MSNBC's Hardball, 7/11/05] http://www.democrats.org/a/p/bush_administration_once_again_links_iraq_and_9-11.html

"In a few weeks, our country will mark the four-year anniversary of the attacks of September the 11th, 2001. On that day, we learned that vast oceans and friendly neighbors no longer protect us from those who wish to harm our people," Bush said. "And since that day, we have taken the fight to the enemy," he said.

"We're fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and around the world, striking them in foreign lands before they can attack us here at home," Bush said.

[urlhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9020634/[/url]

On Sunday, Vice President Dick Cheney said that success in stabilizing and democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/18/iraq/main584234.shtml

A hint of a deliberate campaign to connect Iraq with the 9/11 attacks and al Qaeda surfaced last month in a June televised interview of Gen. Wesley Clark on the popular public-affairs program, 'Meet the Press.' In answer to a question, Clark asserted, ”There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein”.

”It came from the White House, it came from other people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein'.”

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0716-10.htm

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta had met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official. Later, Cheney called Iraq the "geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html

 

[HarryKeogh]

Ah, the lengths the Bushies will go to absolve their fearless leader. Just got back from a few days, so if someone already posted these, I apologize:

Mark, we're arguing this point and this point only...

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: 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?

what he actually said: 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.


If this woman's claim is true where and when did he say he had bullet-proof evidence of a link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks?

Claus can't provide the link to any such quote. Can you?

 

[Jocko]

Ah, the lengths the Bushies will go to absolve their fearless leader. Just got back from a few days, so if someone already posted these, I apologize:

Much better than Claus's efforts, to be sure. No one is contesting that the administration has made efforts to connect terrorists behind 9/11 to the terrorists that met with Hussein. I agree, they have gone to great lengths to remind people that ALL terrorists are eligible for sudden, violent death.

What IS being contested, however, is that Rumsfeld or anyone else ever said Iraq perpetrarted the 9/11 attacks.

But then you already knew that, right, Mark?

 

[Ziggurat]

That is the point: Rumsfeld says one thing, and we go to war, based on that. When it turns out he was wrong, he doesn't want to fess up to his old claims.

No, Claus. YOU posted an exchange where a woman accused Rumsfeld of saying that Iraq was connected to 9/11. EVERYONE except you considers that claim to mean that Iraq was involved in the actual attacks themselves. Rumsfeld never made such a claim, which was his response to that woman. YOU claim Rumsfeld was caught lying about what he said, but he didn't lie. You merely can't understand what everyone else does.

I notice that you completely ignored the reference to the CIA report. Instead you tell me I'm too dumb to understand anything.

Yeah, I did, because that's kind of getting away from the original debate. But since you want to hang onto that, let me ask you: what non-Islamic terrorist groups have we actually waged war against? What terrorist organizations other than Islamic ones pose a threat to the US? Is there any reason to think that the CIA is being anything other than PC by not confining their report to Islamic terrorism?

Why don't you try your hand at my arguments, instead of my person?

What argument? You don't HAVE an argument, Claus. You think that stubbornly hanging onto a point that doesn't even make any sense constitutes having an argument? It doesn't. I've already explained, multiple times, why your original claim in this thread regarding the Iraq-9/11 connection made no sense. You haven't even presented a counter-argument, but merely insisted that you're right. I'd address your points if you had any, but you don't.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, well...

 

[Mark]

Much better than Claus's efforts, to be sure. No one is contesting that the administration has made efforts to connect terrorists behind 9/11 to the terrorists that met with Hussein. I agree, they have gone to great lengths to remind people that ALL terrorists are eligible for sudden, violent death.

What IS being contested, however, is that Rumsfeld or anyone else ever said Iraq perpetrarted the 9/11 attacks.

But then you already knew that, right, Mark?

When they mention them in the same breath over and over and over again, there is a concerted effort to influence perception, with plausible deniability. The fact that you fell for it does not mean it didn't happen.

(Thanks for the back handed compliment, btw. )

 

[Mark]

Mark, we're arguing this point and this point only...

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: 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?

what he actually said: 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.


If this woman's claim is true where and when did he say he had bullet-proof evidence of a link between Saddam and the 9/11 attacks?

Claus can't provide the link to any such quote. Can you?

I didn't make that claim. I am merely providing evidence for a concerted effort to deceive on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ridge, et. al. Limiting the subject to one isolated quote is silly.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? We have an action (Bush's rhetoric) and we have a phenomenon (people believing Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks). We have a hypothesis that the action resulted in the phenomenon. What's the basis for this conclusion? Well, nothing, really. First off, we have NO evidence for what led people to believe what they believed. Bush isn't the only source of information for anyone, and people often come to conclusions even without being told of an answer. Secondly, the hypothesis is basically that Bush created a belief in something that, by the article's own admission, wasn't what he actually said - so we've got to assume that all those people didn't just believe Bush, but they all either misunderstood or extrapolated from what he said, AND that they all adopted a belief based on this misunderstanding or extrapolation, despite Bush having never said it. Is that possible? Maybe. Is there evidence that happened? No.

But it's even worse than that. Let's assume, to be generous, that what Bush says IS that formative of opinions (not something I actually believe is the case). Did he form this particular opinion by his rhetoric? Again, we can't tell from this article. Why? Because we don't know what public opinion was BEFORE he started talking about Iraq. If the numbers started out higher, then isn't it just as possible that the ACTUAL statements from the Bush administration (which included explicit statements that we had no evidence Saddam had a hand in 9/11) actually decreased the percentage of people who thought Saddam was involved in 9/11? We're missing the crucial bit of information, even with the most generous interpretation I can give you.

So, what's the real numbers? I don't know. It's tough because different polls don't all ask the same question, so comparing numbers at different times isn't straightforward. But IIRC, a poll done on 9/13/2001 showed that 78% of the US thought that it was at least likely Saddam was involved in the attacks - that's a slightly broader classification, of course, but it's entirely possible that the number who thought he WAS involved still started out higher than the 45% being cited here.

In other words, all you've got are wild assumptions and rampant speculation. What you do NOT have is proof of any lie, or even a deception.

 

[BPSCG]

When they mention them in the same breath over and over and over again, there is a concerted effort to influence perception, with plausible deniability.

If people can't be bothered to pay attention to what is said and what is not said, how is that Rumsfeld's fault? If you think he means September 11 when he says terror attacks, or that he means bin Laden when he says Muslim terrorists, or that he means Saddam and bin Laden planned September 11 over cocktails when he says there were links between al Qaeda and Iraq, that tells me you need to listen more closely, instead of conflating the entire middle east into one al Qaeda = Saddam = September 11 = bin Laden = Afghanistan = WOT = Iraq hodgepodge.

 

[HarryKeogh]

I didn't make that claim. I am merely providing evidence for a concerted effort to deceive on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ridge, et. al.

That's fine and I agree with you that they were deceptive.

Limiting the subject to one isolated quote is silly.

Not when the original purpose of the thread is to show a specific case of Rumsfeld lying. In this isolated instance he didn't.