Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

Is the subject of this thread about the narrowly defined question of whether from Rummy's exact words is it possible to determine his exact meaning and based on what appears to be the situation make the absolute determination of whether Rummy lied?

Or is the subject of this thread about whether there was a concerted, coordinated effort to mislead people about the certainty of the evidence for WMD in Iraq?

If the subject of this thread is the former, I humbly suggest that the question is unanswerable to a certainty. The answer hangs on semantic uncertainties and a knowledge of the particular intent of Rummy when he said these things.

If the subject of the thread is whether a coordinated effort was put forth by the administration to mislead people about the certainity of the evidence for WMD then I would submit that the evidence of lying is overwhelming.

I believe that I have understood both sides in this debate between Thai and others and I would respectfully submit that both sides are wrong if they claim that there is enough evidence just from these few quotes to make a certain determination of lying or not lying. I lean to Thai's interpretation because I see this quote as part of a much larger pattern of misleading statements about WMD from this administration but I also am willing to concede that with careful parsing and interpretations that seem unlikely but plausible it is possible to make a reasonable case that these words alone do not prove that Rummy lied here.
 
There is another option, it could be the he simply forgot that he claimed to know where WMD's were. Maybe he didn't see that episode of "Meet the Press", as John Daly points out. Maybe he forgot about all those times where he describes, in detail, what kinds of WMD's there are, how many and their potential for destruction.
 
BryanLower said:
"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.
Click to expand...

It's all the difference in the world, but the problem is a bad choice of analogies on your part conceals that difference. You can know where a parking lot is, but not know if a car is parked in that parking lot. McGovern said Rumsfeld stated the equivalent of knowing where the car was. Rumsfeld replied that he stated the equivalent of knowing where the parking lot was, but that he did not know whether there was a car parked there. When we look at parking lots, we typically find parked cars. When we look for parked cars, they are typically in parking lots. But nothing about that relationship requires a given parking lot to have cars parked in it, nor does it require that a given parked car be in a parking lot. So you can indeed know independently where cars are and where parking lots are, and knowing one does not automatically give you the other. The "suspect sites" weren't just random holes in the ground, they were military facilities. They were places where one would expect any WMD's to be put, just as you expect cars to be parked in a parking lot. But just as you can park cars in places other than parking lots, you can also take WMD's off of military sites and put them elsewhere (including neighboring countries).
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's ok, you're republican. You don't even know when you're telling lies.
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahahaha!

Fool, you don't know anything about me. You don't know where I live, you don't know what I do for a job, you don't know my age, you don't even know my gender. And you sure as hell don't know my party registration. To quote Hank Hill, "every time I think you've said the stupidest thing, you keep on talking."

I guess I shouldn't laugh, though - maybe you suffered head trauma and can't really help your imbecility.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's ok, you're republican. You don't even know when you're telling lies.
Click to expand...

Why don't you just answer the questions asked about YOUR assertions and YOUR reference. There are clearly problems with your preferred interpretation. Just address them and get it over with.

If you don't, an unbiased reader can only assume 1) you can't or 2) you don't even know when you're telling lies...even after your error is repeatedly pointed out to you.

Point out the error of our ways.
We are but lumps of clay; be an artist and mold us.
 
Rumsfeld claimed to know where the WMD's were, later he claimed that he never said he knew where they were.

He lied or forgot, that's all there is to it.
 
One day, you'll finish potty training. Perhaps then you can start working on your reading comprehension.
 
thaiboxerken said:
http://www.usembassy.it/file2003_03/alia/A3032803.htm

Evidence, again, for those who missed it the first few times.
Click to expand...

Um, taibo, that's just another source for the exact transcript I already posted to prove that Rumsfeld DIDN'T say what you claimed he said. What you've actually got to provide is an actual argument - you know, string together facts extracted from the sources in a logical manner to arrive at a conclusion. Sorry if Rob confused you on that point - I think he's still assuming you're playing with a full deck.
 
thaiboxerken said:
One day, you'll finish potty training. Perhaps then you can start working on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...


Then answer the many questions asked of you in the many posts.

That's really all you gotta do.

Address it issues pertaining to YOUR assertions. If It's True! then it should be easy. That you haven't even addressed a single one indicates there is a serious problem.
 
thaiboxerken said:
One day, you'll finish potty training. Perhaps then you can start working on your reading comprehension.
Click to expand...

And to think there was a while there that I was actually a bit worried that you f*ckwits on the left would actually recapture congress. Thank you for helping me sleep better tonight, Ken, oh flower of the right-thinking America.
 
CFLarsen said:
Just a few, simple sentences, thank you.
Click to expand...

Don't you find it even slightly hypocritical that you are asking people for multiple quotes when you have failed to provide a single quote for the past dozen pages? Oh wait...I forgot about you being mentally challenged and all....sorry.
 
a_unique_person said:
And this adds what to anything?
Click to expand...

Since Thai consistently refuses to actually address any of the points I've made, but merely repeats himself ad nauseum, it's well past the point where any constructive dialogue is possible with him. So why don't you ask him: what does it add to continually repeat a claim that's already been refuted?
 
Jocko said:
And to think there was a while there that I was actually a bit worried that you f*ckwits on the left would actually recapture congress. Thank you for helping me sleep better tonight, Ken, oh flower of the right-thinking America.
Click to expand...
If you got something against f*ckwits, why do you defend the White House so hard?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom