Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

thaiboxerken said:
No, Ziggy, you are simply trying to explain away the lie. It won't work.
Click to expand...

If that were so, then you would be able to refute me. You would be able to point out how my arguments were wrong, and that the conclusions I draw from them do not follow. But you don't do that. You just keep repeating yourself, without presenting any argument. So I can reach one of two conclusions:
1) I'm right, and you don't present a counter-argument because you can't come up with one that will withstand even cursory scrutiny (sorry for the big words)
OR
2) I'm wrong, the counter-argument is solid, but you're such a blithering imbecile that you can't string together more than one thought to actually form said argument.

So if you keep avoiding addressing the substance of my argument while insisting that I am wrong, then the only basis on which anyone can agree to that claim is if they also conclude that you're a colossal moron. I admit that I have no evidence on which to rule out the possibility of your monstrous stupidity, so I concede that I may yet be wrong.
 
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.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

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. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.




When Rummy says "second" he is moving from the WMD subject to the criminal facility subject.
 
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're arguing the wrong point. The point is not what he's denying knowing now, but what he's denying claiming that he knew then. In this, Thai is essentially correct. I have nothing to add, except to count myself with him, since he is having names thrown at him, I think, unjustly.
 
This is another interesting inteview with Rummy.


Excerpt from "Face the Nation":

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.
 
thaiboxerken said:
When Rummy says "second" he is moving from the WMD subject to the criminal facility subject.
Click to expand...

Wow, you did it! You presented a counter-argument that actually deserves to be addressed! Good on ya, mate!

But is that really the correct interpretation? He could also be breaking it down into first, we don't have control over the suspect sites yet, and second, those sites are large and spread out and will take considerable time to fully search. Both parts of the argument refer to the sites, but it's split up into two reasons why we wouldn't necessarily have found any WMD's even if they were there. That's a logical parsing of his statements as well. And again, under that interpretation, everything he says is consistent and nothing he said is a lie.

Under your interpretation, however, we still have the unaddressed problem of Rumsfeld then contradicting himself later in that same answer when he states that he doesn't know if the WMD's are still at the suspect sites. Therefore it is not internally consistent, because you're saying he said he knew where the WMD's were but then immediately said he didn't know. Not an impressive liar, if he is one.

So, which interpretation is correct? English has enough ambiguities that it's hard to prove. But given that there is a logical and consistent parsing of his statements under which he DIDN'T lie, but you have to arbitrarily insist on a different interpretation in which his answer to Stephanopoulos wasn't even internally consistent in order to conclude he lied, well... you'll really have to excuse me for not sharing your conclusion. But even though I smacked down your argument, I still appreciate you actually offering one this time.
 
Ahh, the old "interpretation" argument. Did you learn your apologist tactics from the catholics? The thing with lies is that they often fail to be logically consistent, that's how a person gets caught in a lie. If Rummy was consistent with his lie, he wouldn't have gotten caught.
 
thaiboxerken said:
He claimed he knew.
Later, he claimed that he never claimed he knew.


How hard is that to understand, Jocko?
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly. I also understand it to be wrong. You did too, for a brief, blessed moment of lucidity:

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...

Address that.
Then address the first quote in your source.
 
STEPHANOPOULOS: 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: …We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


So now the claim from the right-wing nutballs is that, when asked why they haven't found WMDs, Rummy's reply of "we know where they are" isn't referring to WMDs. Interesting. True bleevers come in the form of political fundies as well, I see.
 
CFLarsen said:
Just a few, simple sentences, thank you.

Anyone? At all?
Click to expand...

Because the Bush administration used misdirection to lead the majority of the USA population and congress into thinking that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and that Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them on us.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Because the Bush administration used misdirection to lead the majority of the USA population and congress into thinking that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and that Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them on us.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, we know that.

I was hoping for what was argued.

Strangely enough, this seems very hard for Bushites.
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney06282005.html
Click to expand...

Ken, I am disinclined to follow any more of your links, because you have demonstrated a rank inability or unwillingness to support them on even the most basic level.

You know, like what you consider to be the lie in the first quote heard in your first source.

Please address that, then I'll be glad to pay attention to the rest of your sources, thank you.
 
CFLarsen said:
Yes, well, we know that.

I was hoping for what was argued.

Strangely enough, this seems very hard for Bushites.
Click to expand...

Well, the Catholics have the dogma about the infallibility of the Pope. Perhaps the Republicans have a similar dogma.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Because the Bush administration used misdirection to lead the majority of the USA population and congress into thinking that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks and that Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them on us.
Click to expand...


Zig already buried this lie, Ken. Have a look if you think your worldview can withstand the shock of an actual poll taken on 9/13/01... unless you're saying that the "misdirection" was practically instantaneous.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1626938&postcount=302
 
thaiboxerken said:
Well, the Catholics have the dogma about the infallibility of the Pope. Perhaps the Republicans have a similar dogma.
Click to expand...

Catholics, at least, are able to refer to their own text.

You, on the other hand, lack both the conviction and the scrote.

What about your source, Ken? I think it's a fair question. Is the first quote a lie, and if so, what is untrue about it?
 
More on Rummy's imaginary WMD's

8 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the House Armed Services Commitee: "[Saddam] has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons... including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas... [he] has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons."

20 Jan 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declares: "Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons... His regime is paying a high price to pursue weapons of mass destruction -- giving up billions of dollars in oil revenue. His regime has large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons -- including VX, sarin, cyclosarin and mustard gas; anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox -- and he has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

30 Mar 2003 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells This Week with George Stephanopoulos: "the area... that coalition forces control... 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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom