Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[Rob Lister]

Its name is Public Opinion. It is held in reverence. It settles everything. Some think it is the voice of God. -- Mark Twain

Ah, argument ad populum settles everything but the facts.

In politics, facts are not that important...unless there're on your side.

 

[Upchurch]

If you cut the quote short, as is usually done, then your interpretation is actually the most sensible one. If you DON'T cut the quote short, which is the only fair way to assess his statements, it becomes ambiguous, and your reading is still a plausible one. But Rumsfeld himself has already stated which interpretation he claims is correct, and given that there is ambiguity, I don't think there's a basis upon which to call him a liar.

And backpeddling? Does that not also fit all the facts and not require grammatical gymnastics to justify?

But I would note that pretty much whenever the claim is made that he lied about this, his response is cut short. There are a whole lot of people who simply aren't interested in actually finding out what he really meant, but just want to pin an accusation on him.

Alternately, there are those who will bend over backwards and twist words and meanings to keep from admitting that the man made a simple mistake, both in his initial statement and in claiming that he did not say it in the first place.

It cuts both ways.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is kind of odd that right-wing apologists will try to convince people that Rummy didn't lie. It's not like it is a big lie anyway. It's not one of the lies that ended up with thousands of people dead. If they admitted that he was caught in a lie, there'd be no "controversy" over it. In fact, there really isn't a controversy over it anyway, since most people think he lied and don't care. It was good for a few laughs, that's about it.

 

[a_unique_person]

It was a good excuse to hurl some invective around.

 

[Upchurch]

If you cut the quote short, as is usually done, then your interpretation is actually the most sensible one. If you DON'T cut the quote short, which is the only fair way to assess his statements, it becomes ambiguous, and your reading is still a plausible one. But Rumsfeld himself has already stated which interpretation he claims is correct, and given that there is ambiguity, I don't think there's a basis upon which to call him a liar.

But I would note that pretty much whenever the claim is made that he lied about this, his response is cut short. There are a whole lot of people who simply aren't interested in actually finding out what he really meant, but just want to pin an accusation on him.

So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

 

[Elind]

So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

But you are implying that reasonable people are including information (quotes?) not listed in this thread. In other words, this quote, this poll, this discussion is really irrelevant because some people know that Rummy is always lying. End of discussion.

 

[Upchurch]

But you are implying that reasonable people are including information (quotes?) not listed in this thread. In other words, this quote, this poll, this discussion is really irrelevant because some people know that Rummy is always lying. End of discussion.

Sorry, I was speaking specifically about the line "We know where they are", where "they" refers to either "weapons of mass destruction" or "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed". Using only the quotes provided in this thread, specifically the one from Rumsfeld in which the above appeared, it takes the fewest number of assumptions to come to the conclusion that he, at very least, meant "weapons of mass destruction" and then back peddled from the absoluteness of that statement later.

I am not referencing or implicating any other quotes before or after the quote itself, with the one exception of question that prompted the quote. You would be wise to take your own (albeit, implied) advice.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, you don't see how reasonable people could think differently than you do, even knowing the full quote?

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.

 

[Upchurch]

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.

I just wanted to be sure given all the "quote cut short" stuff.

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?

 

[thaiboxerken]

No, Upchurch. That's pretty much exactly what I DIDN'T say. If I didn't think reasonable people could see it differently, I wouldn't have called your interpretation plausible.

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

 

[Ziggurat]

What do you think of the Occam's Razor argument?

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.

Unless they are politicians.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

It was never the implausibility of your conclusion I objected to, it was your inability to actually address arguments in anything resembling a logical or coherent fashion (not to mention your problems with verb tense, recognizing duplicate paragraphs, and basic dishonesty regarding selective quoting). Upchurch has been able to defend his position, you have not. That's the difference, and it's quite simple. But then, even the simplest concepts seem to give you problems.

 

[Jocko]

Unless it's ME that came up with the same conclusion, then it's not plausible. Strange.

That's because you've demonstrated that you're an unreasoning, rabid Bush-hating android on this issue. Now, you could learn from Upchurch or keep wondering how "strange" it is that people don't take you seriously. I've already placed my bet, so don't dissapoint me, Ken!

 

[Upchurch]

I think if someone tells you they meant something a particular way, and they could have meant it that way, then that's usually how we should then interpret it. I'll leave you to decide how Occam's Razor meshes (or doesn't) with that principle.

As much as I'm not defending thaiboxerken (I don't know why he thinks the way he does) and allowing that it is a cliche, I have to agree with him on his "Unless they are politicians" line. With only one notable exception, politicians who are not good public speakers and are not good at thinking on their feet tend to not go very far in politics. It's like a painter who is clumsy with his brush.

I find it much more likely that Rumsfeld would overstate his position and then back off from it then he would make such a simple grammatical error. Especially since the administration had been pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's so hard and so long at that point.

 

[Jocko]

As much as I'm not defending thaiboxerken (I don't know why he thinks the way he does) and allowing that it is a cliche, I have to agree with him on his "Unless they are politicians" line. With only one notable exception, politicians who are not good public speakers and are not good at thinking on their feet tend to not go very far in politics. It's like a painter who is clumsy with his brush.

I find it much more likely that Rumsfeld would overstate his position and then back off from it then he would make such a simple grammatical error. Especially since the administration had been pushing the idea that Iraq had WMD's so hard and so long at that point.

But is it reasonable to conflate artlessness with deceit? For Ken to have anything even resembling a point, Rumsfeld would have to have known there were no WMD sites (and by extension, no WMDs) and with that conviction, knowingly claimed the contrary. Artlessness is one thing; but that is just plain suicide.

On Planet Ken, there is no such thing as being wrong. Just lying. I object to his binary view of a much more complicated scenario.

Since Occam's is on the table, BTW, is it a simpler explantion that the Bush Administration was wrong, or conspired to decieve? The intelligence behind the claims has been made largely public; does one have to "lie" to draw conclusions from bad intel?

 

[Upchurch]

But is it reasonable to conflate artlessness with deceit? For Ken to have anything even resembling a point, Rumsfeld would have to have known there were no WMD sites (and by extension, no WMDs) and with that conviction, knowingly claimed the contrary. Artlessness is one thing; but that is just plain suicide.

I'm not even going that far anymore. At this point I'm only interested in the most likely meaning of the word "they" in "We know where they are" and whether or not it is reasonable to assert that Rumsfeld said that he knew where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were.

On Planet Ken, there is no such thing as being wrong. Just lying. I object to his binary view of a much more complicated scenario.

I've nothing to say about that, per se. I've long asserted that being anti-woo is not equivalent to being skeptical or critical thinking. Here, agreeing with my position does not mean necessarily mean that I think you are correct. The journey is just as important as the destination and being lost in the woods for 5 hours before stumbling onto the place you want to be is not what I would call a great accomplishment.

Since Occam's is on the table, BTW, is it a simpler explantion that the Bush Administration was wrong, or conspired to decieve?

Generally speaking, conspiracies are always more complex than being wrong. However, in this case there is no conspiracy proposed, at least not from me.

In my opinion, based on the reasons given, Rumsfeld did say that coalition forces knew where Iraq's weapons of mass distruction were at that time. That may not be what he meant and he definitely hedged away from that position later on in the interview, but I think it is valid to say that the assertion was there.

The intelligence behind the claims has been made largely public; does one have to "lie" to draw conclusions from bad intel?

Well, this gets into a different aspect of the argument. Namely, whether or not a lie is an all or nothing deal. No, drawing conclusions from bad data is not lying. Cherrying picking the data for items that support the conclusion that you want to reach ....I would at least call that "less than honest", even if it were unintentional and less than honest with oneself.

This is probably a different discussion for a different thread.

 

[Jocko]

Well, this gets into a different aspect of the argument. Namely, whether or not a lie is an all or nothing deal. No, drawing conclusions from bad data is not lying. Cherrying picking the data for items that support the conclusion that you want to reach ....I would at least call that "less than honest", even if it were unintentional and less than honest with oneself.

I largely agree with your conclusions. Though in regard to whose thread this is, I would extend cherry-picked data and flawed conclusions to apply to Ken just as much as I would apply them to Rumsfeld.

 

[thaiboxerken]

On planet Jocko, if a person in the Bush administration says that they didn't lie, then they didn't and he'll jump through grammatical hoops, stretch meanings and outright fabricate new definitions to justify to himself that such a lie wasn't a lie.

 

[Jocko]

On planet Jocko, if a person in the Bush administration says that they didn't lie, then they didn't and he'll jump through grammatical hoops, stretch meanings and outright fabricate new definitions to justify to himself that such a lie wasn't a lie.

Ken, Ken, Ken... you've missed so much in your own thread. You may not believe it, but the answers you seek are all there if you can be bothered to actually read them.

Also, I'm highly disappointed that you were unable to construct an original slam any more cogently than you can construct an original thought. Ah well, I imagine you're a constant victim of overexpectations of others. Give Pikachu a hug for me, tough guy.