Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

thaiboxerken said:
The context shows, for sure, that Rummy was talking about WMD's and claiming that he knows where they are. You just like to believe Rummy is infallible and doesn't lie. If Rummy didn't lie, there would be no need for apologists such as yourself to try and convince us that he didn't.
Click to expand...

Well, Zig gave you a pretty convincing explanation why you're taking it out of context. Instead of robotically spewing the same memes over and over, why not explain where he's wrong?

Let's throw a red-herring out there to bait people away from the obvious lies that Rummy told.
Click to expand...

What?
IT WAS YOUR SOURCE!
How can that be a red herring? You've already crossed the line from "misinformed" to "liar"; you're about to cross into "patholigical liar."

How about finding your sack and answering the question, Ken?
 
Ziggurat said:
I GAVE them to you. They are contained within the congressional authorization for war. That authorization was requested BY the Bush administration. It was signed BY the Bush administration. It became US policy the moment he signed it. It is, therefore, the official reasons for going to war in Iraq. I gave you what you asked for. Are you going to spend the next five pages of this thread denying that the congressional authorization for war contains the administration's reasons? Because if you are, just tell me now and I'll skip the rest of the thread. I've had enough of your failure to understand anything beyond what you've already decided to last me a long time.
Click to expand...
I'm not asking about Congress. I am asking about the reasons why the Bush Administration's reasons were going to war.

Just a few, simple sentences, thank you. Nothing could be easier. Right?
 
Zig's explanation was an apologist's explanation. Such trickery doesn't work on rational people. Rummy was clearly stating that he knew where WMD's were and gave locations as to where he "knows" they are or were.

How can that be a red herring?
Click to expand...

Does it have anything to do with Rummy's lie about where WMD's are? If the answer is no, then it's a red-herring.
 
CFLarsen said:
I'm not asking about Congress. I am asking about the reasons why the Bush Administration's reasons were going to war.

Just a few, simple sentences, thank you. Nothing could be easier. Right?
Click to expand...

Indeed. In fact, it's already been done.

Just clicky the linky. Nothing could be easier. Unless you're afraid to confront the Pandora's Box you've been taking the crowbar to for all these weeks...
 
thaiboxerken said:
Zig's explanation was an apologist's explanation. Such trickery doesn't work on rational people. Rummy was clearly stating that he knew where WMD's were and gave locations as to where he "knows" they are or were.



Does it have anything to do with Rummy's lie about where WMD's are? If the answer is no, then it's a red-herring.
Click to expand...

I see it now. You can't prove Rumsfeld lied, so you shift the conversation to how you FEEL lied to. You take refuge in emotion, calling a clear rebuttal "trickery," and leaving it at that. To address it fully would compromise your FEELINGS of betrayal.

Guess what, Ken? The suckers in Vegas feel cheated, too. That doesn't make the game crooked... it just shows how the losers don't understand it.

Your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to address a simple question about your own source is obviously nothing more than a psychological defense mechanism, prohibiting you from seeing or thinking anything that may upset your fragile little dreamworld where Rumsfeld and Bush lurk under your bed.

Tell me, how much rent is Claus charging you to live there?
 
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. Second, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.
Click to expand...

Note that this can be parsed (can you say "parse"? It's our Word for the Day!) as the bolded parts all being synonymous. Yes, it's not the best phrasing - under this reading he uses "area" in two different contexts: (1) small locations where the weapons were (note the past tense - that whole parsing thing again) and (2) large geographical regions. And I understand how that can cause you confusion, what with your inability to recognize identical paragraphs and all. But it reads correctly and consistently that way, and every alternative reading has MORE problems, unless you artificially crop part of the statement. Now, why would people keep consistently cropping his statement at a particular point? Hmm....

He's claiming he knew where the WMD's were, but that they might be gone by the time they get there.
Click to expand...

It's time for another lesson in parsing, children! What's our lesson for today? The present vs. the future! Let's take a look at the sentence you refer to, shall we?
"So there may be nothing left."
Does that refer to the future, or the present? Well, by golly, it's ambiguous! You could say "So there may be nothing left right now" (present) or you could say "So there may be nothing left by the time we arrive" (future). My god! Rumsfeld was ambiguous, therefore he lied!

That's a pretty damned unconvincing argument. It's entirely possible to read that sentence as referring to the present. In fact, in context (it's an important word, too), it's more likely to refer to the present, since the activities he believes might have moved the WMD's had ALREADY HAPPENED! He said,
"I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out."
The verb tense on that part is NOT ambiguous, and implies rather strongly that his uncertainty about the location of WMD's does, indeed, extent to their location at the time he made his statements.

You can't tell the difference between references to the past, present, or future, you can't notice duplicate paragraphs, you can't understand how pronouns can be read as referring to multiple different concepts.

If Rummy didn't lie, there would be no need for apologists such as yourself to try and convince us that he didn't.
Click to expand...

That doesn't logically follow. If Rumsfeld did lie, then I'm an apologist, sure. But if Rumsfeld didn't lie, then you're just an obsessive loon, and I'm trying to open your eyes to the truth. Jeeze, do I have to spell out EVERYTHING for you?
 
Thought experiment for Ken regarding the difference between "lying" and "inaccuracy."

Scenario 1: I ask you where you parked your car this morning. You tell me you left it on Venus. That's a lie.

Scenario 2: I ask you where you parked your car this morning. You tell me you left it at the station where you catch the train to work every day. Now, in the 3 hours since you parked, your car has been stolen. Therefore, your testimony about its location is inaccurate.​

Now, at the end of the day, is it fair, right, or constructive for me to point to shattered safety glass in an empty parking space and call you a liar?
 
Jocko said:
Thought experiment for Ken regarding the difference between "lying" and "inaccuracy."
Click to expand...

The scenarios you cooked up aren't even close to the lie that Rummy told. It's obvious that he never knew where the WMD's were or was mistaken. It's also obvious that he is lying when he claims that he never stated that he knew where they were. He did state that he knew.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The scenarios you cooked up aren't even close to the lie that Rummy told. It's obvious that he never knew where the WMD's were or was mistaken. It's also obvious that he is lying when he claims that he never stated that he knew where they were. He did state that he knew.
Click to expand...


Explain the two highlighted words and why they apply to Rumsfeld, but not the scenario I offered.
 
Because the scenarios you cooked up aren't even close.

Here is a more accurate scenario involving parked cars:

1. When asked if I knew where I parked my car, I say "yes" because I know I parked it in the garage.
The car is stolen without my knowledge.
Somone says to me "I thought you said you knew where you parked the car."
If I say "no, I did not say I knew where I parked the car" then I would be telling a lie.

Rummy's lie isn't about not finding WMD's. He is telling a lie when he says that he never stated that he knew where they were. Clearly, he did state that he knew where they were. If Rummy simply said "I was mistaken, I thought I knew where they were" there would be no lie.

He claimed he knew.
Later, he claimed that he never claimed he knew.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's obvious that he never knew where the WMD's were or was mistaken. It's also obvious that he is lying when he claims that he never stated that he knew where they were. He did state that he knew.
Click to expand...

Wait, is it obvious that he lied kind of like it's obvious that the transcript I posted repeated two paragraphs? Or is it a different kind of obvious? Just curious, you know.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Because the scenarios you cooked up aren't even close.

Here is a more accurate scenario involving parked cars:

1. When asked if I knew where I parked my car, I say "yes" because I know I parked it in the garage.
The car is stolen without my knowledge.
Click to expand...

Hold it right there. That is precisely what I said. Now let's continue:

Somone says to me "I thought you said you knew where you parked the car."
If I say "no, I did not say I knew where I parked the car" then I would be telling a lie.
Click to expand...

Which you already admitted you knew Rumsfeld DID NOT SAY, only that he "probably would" in time, in post 386:

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.
Click to expand...

So you see, Ken, THAT scanario has no bearing on reality in any way whatsoever.


Rummy's lie isn't about not finding WMD's. He is telling a lie when he says that he never stated that he knew where they were. Clearly, he did state that he knew where they were. If Rummy simply said "I was mistaken, I thought I knew where they were" there would be no lie.

He claimed he knew.
Later, he claimed that he never claimed he knew.
Click to expand...

So your problem is not that he was inaccurate (as reinforced by your own theft of my metaphor, see above), but that he's not sufficiently contrite? WTF, Ken?
 
He claimed he knew.
Later, he claimed that he never claimed he knew.


How hard is that to understand, Jocko?
 
BryanLower said:
The crux.
Click to expand...

More like the crock. I've already explained how what Rumsfeld said he knew before (namely, the location of suspect sites) isn't the same thing he's denying knowing now (the location of the actual weapons), which means that there's no lie or contradiction involved. And nobody has presented a counter-argument. Instead, ToyBoyKen falls back on repeating the claim that "it's obvious," as if repetition alone will convince anyone. Why we should trust an evaluation of what's "obvious" from someone who can't recognize two duplicate paragraphs back to back is also left unstated.
 
No, Ziggy, you are simply trying to explain away the lie. It won't work. Rummy claimed that he knew where the WMD's were, later he claims that he never claimed that he knew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom