Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[Jocko]

So you're saying that Rumsfeld was telling the truth about not having said that he knew where WMD's were?

Sorry, Ken, but it's your source. If you won't answer a simple question about it, I'm afraid we're through here.

You obvously lack the courage to address the very first item in your "litany of lies," choosing instead to bury the thread in leading questions, inane memes, and lies of your own creation. All while ignoring the a simple question (not to mention the thread's own topic).

Good day.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, I understand how you'd be turned off to the thread because it shows that Rumsfeld did lie. So, you'll go off topic and start asking questions about a soundbite that I posted instead. Then you won't even get specific about that soundbite when asking your questions. That's ok, if I worshipped Bush, I'd be embarrassed too.

 

[CFLarsen]

Right again.

 

[Rob Lister]

Not doubting you but please post transcript so we can get context.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I understand how you'd be turned off to the thread because it shows that Rumsfeld did lie. So, you'll go off topic and start asking questions about a soundbite that I posted instead. Then you won't even get specific about that soundbite when asking your questions. That's ok, if I worshipped Bush, I'd be embarrassed too.

Sorry, Thai, but you're the one who wouldn't get specific. Jocko's right. From where I am right now, I'm not even able to listen to your source. I wouldn't bother even if I could. Why should I? If you post a source, it's up to you to let others know what about it is important, and how it fits in with the debate. You manifestly did not do so, even when asked to - for all I can tell, it could be audio of Bush talking about golf for 30 minutes. Jocko called you on your failure to actually cite anything from your source, and you went scurrying back to the original post, unable to even say what relevance your link had. I don't see how you can claim Jocko can even be off topic when he was only asking you to support how YOUR source was related to this thread. If there's any failure to stick to topic, it would be yours, not his.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There is no reason to cite the source, it's linked. Anyone can listen to it and hear it themselves. Yes, the clip is off-topic, but it is entertaining. It also outlines how the whitehouse went from claiming that Iraq definitely had WMD's to "we were mistaken" to "we never said they had WMD's"

 

[Jocko]

There is no reason to cite the source, it's linked. Anyone can listen to it and hear it themselves. Yes, the clip is off-topic, but it is entertaining. It also outlines how the whitehouse went from claiming that Iraq definitely had WMD's to "we were mistaken" to "we never said they had WMD's"

Whoah, there, tough guy. Who said "we never said they had WMDs?"

This is twice in one day I'm calling bullsh!t on you. This is your big chance to bat .500, so don't disappoint me. Gimme a reliable cite on anyone saying they never claimed there were WMDs in Iraq.

You may choose whatever soundtrack you like for your answer.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Now you're simply getting too literal in reading what I've said. I am not claiming that the Bush administration is literally denying that they claimed WMD's to be in Iraq. Given enough time, though, I'm sure they will.

 

[BPSCG]

Now you're simply getting too literal in reading what I've said. I am not claiming that the Bush administration is literally denying that they claimed WMD's to be in Iraq. Given enough time, though, I'm sure they will.

Ken, buhbelah, when you get yourself into a hole, stop digging. I'm sure if you ask Jocko nicely, he'll throw you down a ladder or a rope or something...

 

[Jocko]

Now you're simply getting too literal in reading what I've said. I am not claiming that the Bush administration is literally denying that they claimed WMD's to be in Iraq. Given enough time, though, I'm sure they will.

So you admit lying when you said:

It also outlines how the whitehouse went from claiming that Iraq definitely had WMD's to "we were mistaken" to "we never said they had WMD's"

Yes, I think we're quite through here after all. Thank you for such an entertaining day.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They are saying "we never said we KNEW they had WMD's."

Rumsfeld lied. That would be an entertaining lie, if it wasn't said to evade responsibility of the deaths of thousands of people.

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were...


Donald Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit, and Bagdad, and East, West, South and North, somewhat.
March 30, 2003: ABC's "This Week".

 

[Jocko]

They are saying "we never said we KNEW they had WMD's."

No, you said that. Which is why you are a liar, and they (insofar as this discussion is concerned) are not.

Rumsfeld lied. That would be an entertaining lie, if it wasn't said to evade responsibility of the deaths of thousands of people.

So, without appeals ad populam, emotion, and a host of other tiny-minded evasion techniques, why not address the first, primary, and presumably important "lie" that I've asked you no fewer than five times now, Ken?

You've whiffed twice. Now you can swing for the fences or sit down in shame. You called the pitch when you posted your "evidence," so now you can swing at it.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were...


Donald Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit, and Bagdad, and East, West, South and North, somewhat.
March 30, 2003: ABC's "This Week".



Donny lied.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were...


Donald Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit, and Bagdad, and East, West, South and North, somewhat.
March 30, 2003: ABC's "This Week".

Question: What, exactly, is a "they"?

Answer: it's shorthand to refer to SOMETHING ELSE!

Question: When two people use the word "they", how can you tell if those two people mean the same thing by "they"? If one person uses the word "they" on two different occasions, how can you tell if that person means the same thing by "they" both times?

Answer: CONTEXT!

Question: What have you not provided for these quotes?

Answer: CONTEXT!

Was Rumsfeld referring to actual weapons in that second quote when he said "they"? Or was he referring to suspect sites? Guess what: you can't tell by the quote! Hell, without more context, he could be talking about camel herds, or sand piles.

So, you want to prove Rummy lied? Then you need to provide some context, to prove exactly what he meant by "they", because if he didn't mean what you're implying (and again, there's no way to judge from the quotes alone), then he didn't lie.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Was Rumsfeld referring to actual weapons in that second quote when he said "they"?

Yes.


On the UN on the accountability of WMD's:


I don't think they [WMD] existed. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last [1991] Gulf War, and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s.
- David Kay, former chief weapons inspector of the UN Special Commission on Iraq, Reuters, Jan. 24, 2004

 

[thaiboxerken]

Context for Rummies lie:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- 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.

ABC interview, March 30, 2003

 

[a_unique_person]

No, you said that. Which is why you are a liar, and they (insofar as this discussion is concerned) are not.



So, without appeals ad populam, emotion, and a host of other tiny-minded evasion techniques, why not address the first, primary, and presumably important "lie" that I've asked you no fewer than five times now, Ken?

You've whiffed twice. Now you can swing for the fences or sit down in shame. You called the pitch when you posted your "evidence," so now you can swing at it.

What does this add to the debate?

 

[Dr Adequate]

So we didn't decide whether Rumsfeld's a liar?

Oh, what a shame.

Of course he is, what's your problem?

The whole damn administration lied like a lying thing on an exceptionally lying sort of day.

Sheesh.

 

[CFLarsen]

So we didn't decide whether Rumsfeld's a liar?

Oh, what a shame.

Of course he is, what's your problem?

The whole damn administration lied like a lying thing on an exceptionally lying sort of day.

Sheesh.

"Clinton LIED!"

"Rumsfeld didn't LIE!"

If they admit Rumsfeld lied, they have no valid reason to criticize Democrats anymore.

Or, alternatively, they have to argue that lying about a blowjob is far worse than lying about leading your country into a bloody war.

Either solution is unbearable, so it is easier to claim Rumsfeld didn't lie in the first place.

 

[Jocko]

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were...


Donald Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit, and Bagdad, and East, West, South and North, somewhat.
March 30, 2003: ABC's "This Week".



Donny lied.

Sigh. Strike three. Maybe you're better off facing AAA pitching, like the kind one gets from Orwell and AUP.