• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Rumsfeld Lie?

Did he lie about claiming to KNOW where WMD's were?

  • Yes, he clearly stated that he knew where they were in the interview.

    Votes: 52 69.3%

  • No, he was talking about suspected sites

    Votes: 13 17.3%

  • On planet-x, Rummy is honest.

    Votes: 10 13.3%
  • Total voters
    75

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,551
Rumsfeld claimed that he never said he knew where WMD's were.


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

Here is a transcript of the entire interview, for those that want to read it. Here is the relevant data:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? 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: 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.
 
We don't know that he lied with his original statement.


You could make a case about him lying now about making that statement, or at the very least seriously dodging the issue.
 
More argument ad populum?

Given this demographic, you'll no doubt find they agree. Can any of those that do answer yes provide the evidence that you don't seem to be able to provide? I've read every post written in "that other thread" but not once did you back up your claims. You fabricated several claims, though I don't think you did it intentionally; you're just too, too biased to see the forest for the trees.

I wish you luck in this, and perhaps Clause will help by once again trying to change the subject to...well, to anything other than Rumsfeld.
 
The evidence was provided in the links I gave. People can read the entire transcript of the interview.

When the former CIA guy says "You said you knew where they were." Rumsfeld reply is an outright lie.

"I did not." Is the lie.


I do agree that the demograph of the forum will greatly affect the poll, since the forum is mostly made up of intelligent freethinkers.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The evidence was provided in the links I gave. People can read the entire transcript of the interview.
Click to expand...

Which paragraphs?

Paragraphs 2 and 3 or 4 and 5?

Clearly the transcript leaves a little to be desired in terms of accuracy. Many posters have pointed this out to you. Your solution seems to be to ignore the context altogether.

Address the clear context. You refused to do so after many, many, many attempts to get you to do so. Why?
 
Grammatron said:
You could make a case about him lying now about making that statement, or at the very least seriously dodging the issue.
Click to expand...

Actually, he tried in another thread and got thrashed rather badly in the attempt. Short summary: selective quotations and some poor phrasing make a non-story appear to be more than it really is. I will just note his dishonesty in cutting Rumsfeld's response short, despite the fact that I pointed out to him repeatedly that the counterargument comes from what Rumsfeld says after the point at which he cuts the quote short.

That's why he's started a new thread with this poll: he's hoping to reaffirm his delusions via a popularity contest, because hey, if everyone SAYS that's the way it happened, maybe the mass of collective delusions can warp space-time and turn belief into reality. Or more charitably, maybe he thought I'd leave him alone here, and that nobody would check out the other thread which demolishes his argument.
 
It's funny how you bushites think that Rummy is talking about something else when answering a question about WMD's. Oh well, whatever keeps your heros on a pedestal.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's funny how you bushites think that Rummy is talking about something else when answering a question about WMD's. Oh well, whatever keeps your heros on a pedestal.
Click to expand...

It's even funnier when you revert to ad homs when asked for evidence.
Just address the points and questions raised about YOUR assertions and YOUR sources. That's all you have to do. No ad homs needed.
 
Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?
 
whenever challenged, rummy just drags the argument into semantics until everyone's forgotten what it was they were really talking about....:D


"I would not say that the future is necessarily less predictable than the past. I think the past was not predictable when it started"

"I believe what I said yesterday. I don't know what I said, but I know what I think, and, well, I assume it's what I said."


he's also a master of never commiting himself.....

"We do know of certain knowledge that he [Osama Bin Laden] is either in Afghanistan, or in some other country, or dead."

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." –on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction

but sometimes he can be quite honest.....

"If I know the answer I'll tell you the answer, and if I don't, I'll just respond, cleverly."


everyone knows rummy lies....he's just pretty damn good at it....:D

quotes from http://politicalhumor.about.com/cs/quotethis/a/rumsfeldquotes.htm
 
thaiboxerken said:
Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?
Click to expand...

Actually, Thai, the DoD website was my source. I'm the one who originally found that transcript and posted it, not you. Rob is blasting your pathetic inability to defend your arguments in that previous thread, and I guess you're allowed to abandon those claims when starting another thread. But your deliberate decision to crop off what I already told you was a critical part of Rumsfeld's response is dishonest. But don't worry, I won't call you a lair for it, or your head might pop.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Wait, you don't like my source for the interview? Do you have a problem with the DoD's information?
Click to expand...

Do you reallly want to raise a strawman this early in the thread?

There is clearly, clearly a problem with the transcript. And you are clearly clearly using it to make x look like z.

That's okay...we know.
 
Rumsfeld said:
We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.
Click to expand...

With a description like that, how can you be wrong? I'm sure there are some WMD's east, west, south or north of Tikrit and Baghdad, if you're willing to go far enough east, west, south or north :p
 
Yes, there is a problem with the transcript, it repeats two paragraphs of the interview. It doesn't change Rumsfeld's claim of knowing where the WMD's were.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Yes he did, it's in my signature.
Click to expand...

Oh, well, then that settles it.

So I see you've tired of building strawmen... and moving the goalposts... and appealing to authority... now you're working on argumentum ad populam. Seriously, Ken, you're officially a texbook troll. If I looked closer, I'd bet you're laying out fallacies in alphabetical order, just to feel clever.

I'm just gonna sit back and watch your spiky little head explode, in between your posts to the Dragonball Z erotic fan fiction site, of course. :rolleyes:
 
It's nice to see that the majority of people in the forum can spot a lie when they see it. ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom