Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[Tricky]

If you draw parity between those two terms, then we're in agreement.

My problem with the whole assumption of nefarious intent is this: For Rumsfeld to have lied, in the true sense of the word, he must have known something contrary to what he was saying. That means had proof that there were no WMDs, rather than evidence that there were.

Yes, he could have been wrong about "knowing". If there was the possibility he didn't really know, then he shouldn't have said "we know". Saying you know something when you do not could be construed by many as a lie concerning the certainty of your "knowledge". Its a moot point.

What is not moot is that he postured himself as possessing knowledge, not evidence. There was some evidence for WMDs and some against. For example, the UN inspection tours had not found anything of substance and strongly advised continuing the search rather than invading. So we started a war based on "knowledge" that had been contradicted by others, including some of our allies. If that wasn't a lie, it was just as bad. In fact, it was worse than most lies because of the results.

Call it what you like.

 

[Elind]

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".

And I was refering to the line "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

It is a stupid comment, but simply says that he thought they were in Iraq. Duuhh.

Stupid or wrong is not the same as lying, is my point.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So your ever-mobile goalposts have now reduced the issue to a simple allegation of lying about a statement, and has nothing to do with WMDs?

The goalpost never moved, it's up in the poll. The poll is about his claim of never claiming to know, not about WMD's themselves.

And you think that's an issue?

No, it's really not an issue. Yet, you and other right-wingers seem to really want people to think that he didn't make this inconsequential lie.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It is a stupid comment, but simply says that he thought they were in Iraq. Duuhh.

Actually, he's saying he "knows" they are in Iraq. Later, he claims that he never claimed to "know" they were in Iraq.

 

[Rob Lister]

He appears to be speaking of WMD facilities.

 

[Upchurch]

He appears to be speaking of WMD facilities.

care to expand on that, a tad? What are you referring to and how do you come to that conclusion?

 

[Art Vandelay]

Bible apologists use your same tactic, when a contradiction is found, they explain it away as interpretation.

And should anyone declare that what Rumsfeld says is the inerrant word of God, I would most certainly disagree.

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.

Assumptions are not something that can be quantified. It is nearly meaningless to say that one set of assumptions is "bigger" than another, unless the latter is a proper subset.

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

I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.

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

You have claimed that Rumsfeld definitely lied, not that is is merely plausible that he lied.

You remind me of Tai Chi, Jocko. You think you're so clever, but you're not.

I have found that Jocko is almost always clever. Even when he is wrong, he manages to be wrong in a clever manner.

So your ever-mobile goalposts have now reduced the issue to a simple allegation of lying about a statement, and has nothing to do with WMDs?

In this case, I must side with TBK. The issue has, from the start, not been whether he lied about WMD, but whether he lied about whether he knew where WMDs were.

No, it's really not an issue. Yet, you and other right-wingers seem to really want people to think that he didn't make this inconsequential lie.

If it's not really an issue, why do you people keep starting thread after thread about it? Has anyone started a thread merely to deny that Rumsfeld lied? If we "right-wingers" are so very concerned about it, why are you the ones that keep starting the threads?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.

Does this reasoning apply to Bill Clinton's statements about sexual relations as well?

If we "right-wingers" are so very concerned about it, why are you the ones that keep starting the threads?

Because I like to see the right-wingers do what they do best.... deny, deny, deny.

 

[Elind]

Actually, he's saying he "knows" they are in Iraq. Later, he claims that he never claimed to "know" they were in Iraq.

I'm commenting on the sentence in the OP. I don't know what you are; but for the record, I know that WMD's were in Iraq in 1990 at least and I know with certainty that they would be there again today if Saddam was still running the show.

But don't feel bad about not having the choice to deal with that today, after all you can practise on Iran instead.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I know with certainty that they would be there again today if Saddam was still running the show.

No, you don't.

 

[Elind]

Yes I do. You know what I mean. Do you seriously think he would change spots, any more than that fanatic in Iran will? I knew 3 years ago that they would screw the EU and said so in a post somewhere for the benefit of those who wanted to "talk" more.

I know that Saddam would be back in the same game, probably justifying it as an arms race with Iran. Know the history there?

 

[thaiboxerken]

There are no WMD's in Iraq. You don't know S***. The sanctions worked. I'm sure he wanted WMDs, though.

 

[Elind]

You don't pay attention very well. Too many steroids?

Do you think, in the alternate universe, that sanctions would still be in place if not for the invasion of Iraq? Did you read news prior to that? They would have been over, fini, gone, long ago and the Russians, French, Chinese and more would have been falling over themselves to do business and look the other way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You don't pay attention very well. Too many steroids?

Do you think, in the alternate universe, that sanctions would still be in place if not for the invasion of Iraq? Did you read news prior to that? They would have been over, fini, gone, long ago and the Russians, French, Chinese and more would have been falling over themselves to do business and look the other way.

Feel free to apply for the JREF challenge for the paranoral ability of KNOWING how alternate timelines will turn out.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Does this reasoning apply to Bill Clinton's statements about sexual relations as well?

I don't recall Clinton invoking Occam's Razor. Can you explain?

I will tell you, however, that I was willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt for quite a while. When Gennifer Flowers' accusations surfaced, I figured it was just political mudslinging. I still felt the same way after the Paula Jones suit began. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, and you have failed miserably in dispelling my doubt.

Because I like to see the right-wingers do what they do best.... deny, deny, deny.

It's not too difficult, when left-wingers keep coming up with such absurd claims.

There are no WMD's in Iraq. You don't know S***. The sanctions worked. I'm sure he wanted WMDs, though.

The purpose of the sanctions was to pressure Saddam into complying with the cease fire agreements and the following UN resolutions. The idea that they "worked" is absurd. If they had "worked", they wouldn't have been needed anymore. The sanctions absolutely, definitely, completely failed, and in fact simply fueled anti-American sentiment, helping inspire 9/11. Just another absurd claim that is so easily denied by anyone with any common sense.

 

[a_unique_person]

Funny, haven't heard much from any of them. Obviously too winded, yeah?

I'd guess a lot of people don't see the point in standing up just to be insulted by you.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'd guess a lot of people don't see the point in standing up just to be insulted by you.

It's a mark of credibility to be insulted by Jocko.

If he insults you, it's because you are right.

 

[Tricky]

The purpose of the sanctions was to pressure Saddam into complying with the cease fire agreements and the following UN resolutions. The idea that they "worked" is absurd. If they had "worked", they wouldn't have been needed anymore.

It doesn't appear that you've thought about this very much. Some things only "work" if you continue to use them. That's like saying "if insulin worked, I wouldn't need it any more". No, I'm not saying that we would need to keep sanctions in place forever, but there is a great deal of evidence that they were in fact working, the greatest one being that neither the UN inspectors or the invaders could find any WMDs. I don't see how you can have any better evidence than that.

The sanctions absolutely, definitely, completely failed, and in fact simply fueled anti-American sentiment, helping inspire 9/11.

That's a bit of a stretch. I haven't heard any statements by OBL or other terrorist talking heads that indicate that sanctions were a reason for 9/11. And again I ask, if the sanctions failed "definitely and completely", why didn't we find WMDs? What caused Saddam to ditch them?

Just another absurd claim that is so easily denied by anyone with any common sense.

LOL. "Common sense" says the Earth is flat. The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Assumptions are not something that can be quantified. It is nearly meaningless to say that one set of assumptions is "bigger" than another, unless the latter is a proper subset.

It isn't a matter of measuring how "big" an assumption is, merely the number of solutions. One theory requires grammatical gymnastics (I like that term), the other does not. If that doesn't do it for you, fine. Occam's is just a rule of thumb.

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

I have already explained why it is completely irrelevant.

I'm sorry. I must have missed where you did this. Could you please point it out?

 

[Upchurch]

LOL. "Common sense" says the Earth is flat. The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.

I consider "common sense" to be a red-flag that someone can't rationally defend their position. That and "obvious". Whenever I see these terms, I've found that it usually means that the speaker hasn't explored the issue thuroughly and is content with their current conclusion/interpretation/assumption. It also usually means that they aren't even willing to try to defend the position, either.