Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[thaiboxerken]

"misdirection" was practically instantaneous.

People believed it from the start, Bush just fanned the flame and kept mentioning 9/11 when talking about Iraq.

 

[Ziggurat]

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

I'm devious like that. I rebutted his claims in this very thread before he even made them. It's my spooky time-traveling ESP. Or maybe it was my mind-control abilities which induced him to post a claim which has already been demolished in order to humiliate him. I'm not telling which.

 

[Jocko]

People believed it from the start, Bush just fanned the flame and kept mentioning 9/11 when talking about Iraq.

Caught in another lie yourself, Ken. Just minutes ago, you 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

To LEAD the majority. Not to encourage, not to maintain, not to support, you said to lead.

Explain your lie, please, since it's far more egregious than anything you've been able to pin on anyone else. I'd like to get a baseline for what you consider a lie.

 

[Jocko]

I'm devious like that. I rebutted his claims in this very thread before he even made them. It's my spooky time-traveling ESP. Or maybe it was my mind-control abilities which induced him to post a claim which has already been demolished in order to humiliate him. I'm not telling which.

Well, considering that (by now) he hopefully grasps that his own musical montage opens with a blatant, bald-faced TRUTH, I think it's safe to assume that Ken's not the most meticulous of researchers.

I'm not either, but in this case at least I seem to be on the right side of the hysterical divide.

 

[Ziggurat]

More on Rummy's imaginary WMD's

This thread is titled "Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice." It is not titled "Rumsfeld proven wrong. Twice." Your quotes show Rumsfeld claiming somthing that appears to have been wrong. It does not demonstrate Rumsfeld lying about anything.

I know this is advanced logic for you, but being a liar is not synonymous with being wrong. Sorry, that may be too big a word: being wrong is not the same thing as being a liar.

Was Rumsfeld wrong?

Yes, it appears he was.

Did Rumsfeld lie?

I haven't seen a lie pointed out in this thread, so based upon current evidence I would conclude that no, he is not.

 

[BryanLower]

People believed it from the start, Bush just fanned the flame and kept mentioning 9/11 when talking about Iraq.

Precisely. That was the misdirection... playing on people's incorrect ideas that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 to create a segue from invasion of Afghanistan to invasion of Iraq. As a responsible head of state, Bush needed to ensure that any illusions the American people had about Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 were quashed. Instead, he found those beliefs convenient for getting people to accept the invasion of Iraq.

WMD was the primary, spoken reason for the invasion of Iraq. We were told that "we know where they are", yet they didn't exist. Now we're told "I never claimed I new where they were". That's a lie. Maybe they were mistaken about the WMD in Iraq, but for Rumsfeld to deny claiming that he knew where the weapons were is not a mistake. It is a lie. Rumsfeld said it. Then he denied saying it. And he still has a job.

 

[BryanLower]

This thread is titled "Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice." It is not titled "Rumsfeld proven wrong. Twice." Your quotes show Rumsfeld claiming somthing that appears to have been wrong. It does not demonstrate Rumsfeld lying about anything.

I know this is advanced logic for you, but being a liar is not synonymous with being wrong. Sorry, that may be too big a word: being wrong is not the same thing as being a liar.

Was Rumsfeld wrong?

Yes, it appears he was.

Did Rumsfeld lie?

I haven't seen a lie pointed out in this thread, so based upon current evidence I would conclude that no, he is not.

You're still arguing the wrong point, and I'm beginning to suspect you're doing it on purpose now. Rumsfeld made a statment that was wrong. Then he denied making the statement. That is the lie. We can argue all day long about how wrong the WMD claims were. It's fun to do so, but we wouldn't claim that Rumsfeld was lying when he claimed he knew where the WMD were. However, if Rumsfeld denied ever making the claim, he would be lying.

 

[Ziggurat]

We were told that "we know where they are", yet they didn't exist. Now we're told "I never claimed I new where they were". That's a lie. Maybe they were mistaken about the WMD in Iraq, but for Rumsfeld to deny claiming that he knew where the weapons were is not a mistake. It is a lie. Rumsfeld said it. Then he denied saying it. And he still has a job.

You through around these pronouns like "they" and "it", based on assumptions about what "they" and "it" actually refer to. Those assumptions are simply wrong. I have ALREADY shown why it is a misinterpretation of what such pronouns refer to which leads to incorrect conclusions about what Rumsfeld said. I have ALREADY explained how the two statements being referred to do, in fact, use "they" to refer to distinct objects, and why this means that there is no lie, let alone an inconsistency, in Rumsfeld's statements on that matter. And instead of counter-arguments, people just keep repeating the same bloody stupid claim. Have you not been paying ANY attention?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're still arguing the wrong point, and I'm beginning to suspect you're doing it on purpose now.

I'm responding to what Ken is posting. If he posts something off topic and I respond, don't blame me for getting off topic.

As to the point you want me to address, I already did. Go back and read the bleeding thread. If you ask nicely, I'll even point you to the posts which address exactly what you're blabbering about. But don't tell me I'm avoiding something because you can't be bothered to read further back more than two posts.

 

[Jocko]

Precisely. That was the misdirection... playing on people's incorrect ideas that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 to create a segue from invasion of Afghanistan to invasion of Iraq. As a responsible head of state, Bush needed to ensure that any illusions the American people had about Hussein having anything to do with 9/11 were quashed. Instead, he found those beliefs convenient for getting people to accept the invasion of Iraq.

WMD was the primary, spoken reason for the invasion of Iraq. We were told that "we know where they are", yet they didn't exist. Now we're told "I never claimed I new where they were". That's a lie. Maybe they were mistaken about the WMD in Iraq, but for Rumsfeld to deny claiming that he knew where the weapons were is not a mistake. It is a lie. Rumsfeld said it. Then he denied saying it. And he still has a job.

Bryan, I know you give preference to posters who agree with you. Frankly, so do I.

However, there is something to be gained by looking at the counterarguments. For starters, have a look at the congressional authorization Zig was kind enough to post. I give that a bit more weight than your personal recollection, which, by the way, differs significantly from mine.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You're still arguing the wrong point, and I'm beginning to suspect you're doing it on purpose now.

Of course he is, because otherwise, he'd have to admit that Rummy lied. That would go against his RNC dogma.

 

[CFLarsen]

Don't blame others because you couldn't make the point of your OP.

Just a few, simple sentences, thank you.

 

[Jocko]

Just a few, simple sentences, thank you.

You have been given them. You have refused to read them. That is your fault, not mine, just like the rest of your willful ignorance.

Have you ever dreamed of starting a thread that didn't devolve into a detailed study into your own fragile ego? Because no matter what you start talking about, that's how you always finish... defending your own tattered sense of worth.

 

[Jocko]

Of course he is, because otherwise, he'd have to admit that Rummy lied. That would go against his RNC dogma.

How about that first quote, Ken? What's untrue about it?

 

[BryanLower]

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

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

But that is *not* what he said. The quote in which he claimed "we know where they are" was not about "suspect sites". In fact, if he had said "suspect", he would have avoided the statement of certainty, and thus avoided culpability. It doesn't take much to know where "suspect sites" are. You can just say "i suspect that site", and point to it on a map. See, I know where it is. In answer to the question about WMD put to him, he was talking about either 1) WMD itself, or 2) facilities where WMD was manufactured/secreted. Either way, he was wrong-- the pronoun can apply to either, it doesn't matter. And either way, to later claim that he was talking about "suspect sites" is a lie. That is not what he claimed. Nothing about "suspect sites" is in the transcript. If the word "suspect" had even passed his lips, I would gladly give him credit.

His next statement about "there may be nothing left" is the same tactic used by cold readers. He's hedging. Now he can't be wrong. He's opened the door for apologists to claim that he never said what he said. I'm sorry, but that tactic shouldn't fly with skeptical thinkers.

I've read the congressional authorization for military force against Iraq. I read it before it was passed. All the reasons provided are all well and good, but only justify invading Iraq if 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) they are/were involved in 9/11, or 3) they were planning some future attack against the U.S. Otherwise, there's no way it would be in the best interests of the United States to invade the country-- especially not with Bin Laden still at large. Turns out, none of the three justifications were met.

 

[Ziggurat]

And either way, to later claim that he was talking about "suspect sites" is a lie. That is not what he claimed. Nothing about "suspect sites" is in the transcript. If the word "suspect" had even passed his lips, I would gladly give him credit.

The point of contention is not over the word "suspect". It is whether "they" refers to sites, or whether "they" refers to WMD's. McGovern is claiming that "they" refers to WMD's. Rumsfeld replied that "they" refers to sites. The additional qualifier of "suspect" is quite secondary to that distinction. If you concede that Rumsfeld meant sites when he used "they", then the claim of him lying becomes very hard to maintain, regardless of the additional qualifier, because McGovern is simply wrong in his initial claim. If, as McGovern contends, "they" referred to WMD's themselves, then Rumsfeld lied even if you accept the use of "suspect". So you're not even getting the point of contention right.

I've read the congressional authorization for military force against Iraq. I read it before it was passed. All the reasons provided are all well and good, but only justify invading Iraq if 1) Iraq has WMD, 2) they are/were involved in 9/11, or 3) they were planning some future attack against the U.S. Otherwise, there's no way it would be in the best interests of the United States to invade the country-- especially not with Bin Laden still at large. Turns out, none of the three justifications were met.

Fine, that's a valid opinion, and there are arguments to be made for that point of view. Just as there are good arguments to be made that we were justified in invading even in the absence of definitive information about these topics. But that's getting into a wholely different debate, and even accepting your opinion on that topic, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that Rumsfeld or Bush lied.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rumsfeld mean WMD when he said "they". He was answering a question specifically about WMDs when he said "We know where they are. They're right up here in the area around Tikrit."

Rummy is a liar.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rumsfeld mean WMD when he said "they". He was answering a question specifically about WMDs when he said "We know where they are. They're right up here in the area around Tikrit."

Way to avoid addressing my arguments detailing exactly why you're wrong on that point, you drooling half-wit.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Actually, your arguments are simply lies. Rummy WAS talking about WMDs.

 

[BryanLower]

The point of contention is not over the word "suspect". It is whether "they" refers to sites, or whether "they" refers to WMD's. McGovern is claiming that "they" refers to WMD's. Rumsfeld replied that "they" refers to sites. The additional qualifier of "suspect" is quite secondary to that distinction. If you concede that Rumsfeld meant sites when he used "they", then the claim of him lying becomes very hard to maintain, regardless of the additional qualifier, because McGovern is simply wrong in his initial claim. If, as McGovern contends, "they" referred to WMD's themselves, then Rumsfeld lied even if you accept the use of "suspect". So you're not even getting the point of contention right.

"suspect" is not secondary, it is central. That's what Rumsfeld claimed he was talking about when he said "they". If that's not what he was talking about, then he lied. He was either talking about WMD, or sites where WMD was manufactured or hidden. Either way, you're talking about WMD. You can't find one without the other. You can't know where one is without knowing where the other is. If I find my car, I also find the place where my car is. If I say "I know where the site that my car is located is" (sorry for the bad grammar, trying to mimick "we know where they are"), I can't later say "what I actually said is, I know where a suspect site where my car may be is". I would lying. You're pointing out a distinction without a difference.

Fine, that's a valid opinion, and there are arguments to be made for that point of view. Just as there are good arguments to be made that we were justified in invading even in the absence of definitive information about these topics. But that's getting into a wholely different debate, and even accepting your opinion on that topic, it doesn't lead to the conclusion that Rumsfeld or Bush lied.

I agree. Someone suggested I read the congressional authorization of blah blah blah. I just wanted to point out that I've already read it. Now we can move past it.