Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[Jocko]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

Half the people on the board don't speak English as a first language.

I'm beginning to suspect you are one of them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Doesn't matter how many languages they speak, as long as they speak and understand english.

 

[CFLarsen]

Half the people on the board don't speak English as a first language.

I'm beginning to suspect you are one of them.

Are people who don't speak English as a first language second-rate?

 

[Jocko]

Are people who don't speak English as a first language second-rate?

No, simply qualifying Ken's rather bizarre criteria among the sample set. Apparently, Ken thinks facts and reasoned parsing of the statements in question is trumped by popularity. In other words, it seems Ken believes in voting on what is a fact and what is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

We know where they are. - Rummy

Wow! My whole point is that the "they" in that sentence refers to something else! You had no response to my argument, so you then jump to another sentence which DOES refer to WMD's. I point out that you got the verb tense on that sentence wrong, so you jump back to your original discredited and undefended claim, as if that's new. How clueless are you?

I don't care what your first language is. Your own grammar is fine, your spelling is fine (and I'm not one to complain on that point as long as it's legible), but somehow you're incapable of parsing language from anyone else. So I disagree with Jocko: I suspect that English is either your first language or at least a language you've spoken fluently for a long time. You're just an idiot who can't form a coherent argument to save your life.

 

[Grammatron]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

Yeah...right.

 

[Grammatron]

But if he isn't a liar, then he is incompetent. Frankly, I'd prefer a liar.

Clinton can't run again...sorry had to say it

All those who view this administration as incompetent had a chance in 2004 and were not successful. The next chance is coming up in 2008 and this time Bush can't run again.

Frankly, if people focused more on invompetency rather than conspiracy and lies Bush would have been voted out.

 

[Ziggurat]

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

As of my writing this, 57 people answered the poll. I counted 13 people who actually posted anything in the thread, and a number of those just posted hit-and-run comments which don't address the substance of the issue. And NONE of those posters has refuted my claims - hell, even you don't really try, but just keep running in circles by jumping from claim to claim as each one is demolished in turn. Somehow, despite that huge majority you're laying claim to, only a few of them are even willing to enter the debate, and none have stepped forward to actually defend their poll answers after I posted Rumsfeld's whole response and demonstrated how you misrepresented and misinterpreted it. Your majority has been, in short, dumbstruck. Why you think it bolsters your case to hide behind others who won't even argue their beliefs is quite beyond me, but it's far from the first nonsensical thing you've done.

 

[Art Vandelay]

THe majority opinion IN THIS POLL.

Is it too much to ask that you speak in complete sentences?

It's funny how you have to merge paragraphs to try to make it seem as if Rummy is talking about criminal facilities and not WMD's.

How did he "merge paragraphs"?

Also, Rummy "knew" that the crimina facilities were were [sic] the WMD's were kept. It's the same thing as claiming knowledge of where the WMD's are.

This is portion to which Ziggurat was responding when he pointed out that there is a difference betwween "were" an "are". You jumped, without absolutely no justification whatsoever, from "were" to "are". When called on it, you posted the dishonest response of "We know where they are. - Rummy". He said that we know where the areas where the WMD were are. "Were" applies to WMDs. "Are" applies to the areas.

Alas, no WMD's were found.. nor was there any evidence that they existed or were produced.

Iraq never had WMD? Never ever?

There were no ties to Al Queda and no WMD's.

The justification wasn't that there were WMDs. The justification was that Iraq was not complying with the inspection regime. But you just keep insisting that it is Rumsfeld who's the liar.

Almost 70% of the people in the poll disagree. I think most of those polled speak and understand english.

16% think that it means "areas" not "WMD". Which means it is quite likely that Rumsfeld is in that category. It's irrelevant what you think it means; for Rumsfeld to be lying, he had to have believed that it meant "WMD".

 

[thaiboxerken]

In retrospect, Rummy claims that he meant areas, not WMD. At the time he said it, i'm sure he meant WMD. That's ok, I guess most people in the forum simply can't comprehend english, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

In retrospect, Rummy claims that he meant areas, not WMD. At the time he said it, i'm sure he meant WMD.

And yet, you can't provide an argument for why that's the only sensible interpretation. So how do you know? Time-traveling ESP? I though I was the only one who could do that.

That's ok, I guess most people in the forum simply can't comprehend english, right?

No, Taibo, just you. It's all just you. You've been abandoned by your majority.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And yet, you can't provide an argument for why that's the only sensible interpretation.

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

No, Taibo, just you. It's all just you. You've been abandoned by your majority.

The poll is still there. I haven't seen anyone recant their vote.

 

[Ziggurat]

The poll is still there. I haven't seen anyone recant their vote.

Why would they? It's anonymous, so nobody has to fess up to making a mistake to begin with. Votes can't actually be retracted, so the only recanting would be admitting making a mistake, and that's hard to do. You, for example, have yet to actually admit to any of your numerous mistakes on this topic (such as confusing verb tenses, or not recognizing duplicate paragraphs). You just pretend they never happened.

And besides, I bet a lot of the voters just moved on, and didn't bother following the subsequent thread. Nobody's under any actual obligation to do more.

 

[Upchurch]

Time for another reading lesson. Stephanopoulos isn't asking where the WMD's are, he's asking why they haven't been found.

Incorrect. Let's review:

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?

He was not asking why they had not been found. He stated that they had not been found. Stephanopoulos's question was concerning the consequences of having not found any WMD's to date and whether or not Rumsfeld was concerned (i.e. "curious") that no WMD's had been found.

continuing:

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all.

I take this to be referring to the last question. Namely, he is saying that it is not at all curious to him that despite the large control U.S. and coalition forces have/had in the country, they haven't found any WMD's.

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.

Rumsfeld is establishing what the area is that the coalition forces control. It is not curious to him that they have not found the WMD's (see previous statement), because he claims that the area controlled by coalition forces is not the same area where the WMD's are located (or "dispersed").

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

"they" in both the first and second sentence clearly refers to WMD's as it is redundant for him to state that coalition forces know where coalition forces are (or to refer to them in the third person since the US is part of the coalition forces) and it is nonsensical to state that one area is in another (eta: that is, "a different") area. The only other subject left are WMD's.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.

"them" here now refers to the facilities.

It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.

This, again, I take as referring to the question of whether or not Rumsfeld is curious that they have not yet found any WMD's.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Here we see the difficulties of the English language. In the first sentence, "things" can be inferred to mean the contents of the facility. In the second sentence, "them" refers to the "things".

Assuming that Rumsfeld is implying that the facilities had, at least at one time, contained WMD's (no other subjects such as coalition forces, areas, or facilities make any sense), he sets up an uncertainty. Either he is contradicting his earlier statement in this response that "we know where they are" or he is backing off from the specificity of that statement by making it more along the lines of "we know where they may have been." At best, he is back peddling. At worst, he is contradicting himself.

going back to your parsing:

"It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed."

Let's do that little thing we call parsing. What's the subject of the sentence? "It". What does "It" refer to? It refers to something mentioned in the sentence before that, namely the area coalition forces control.

Correct.

So the subject is an area. What's the verb? "be", or more broadly "not to be". What's the object? "the area". The object of the sentence is modified by a conjunction "where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed". But the conjunction modifies "area", not the other way around. So it's inaccurate to say that the sentence is about WMD's. It is about areas, with WMD's serving only as a (past tense) modifier for one of those areas. You will get spanked repeatedly on parsing until you learn how to do it yourself.

Also correct and utterly unrelated to whether or not Rumsfeld has said that he knows or knew where the WMD's were.

Furthermore, the sentence immediately FOLLOWING what you claim is Rumsfeld's lie ("Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area.") Is EXCLUSIVELY about areas (or facilities, if you prefer), and makes no mention of WMD's at all. If you want to talk merely about proximity of the sentence in question to other words and terms, you still lose.

Well, you skipped right over the pertinent part. Why didn't you parse the sentence that thaiboxerken stated was Rumsfeld's lie?


edited for spelling.

 

[Upchurch]

And NONE of those posters has refuted my claims -

Perhaps they were just more clever than I was and saw that you jumped over the statement in question before they wrote a long winded exploration of the entire quote.

Your majority has been, in short, dumbstruck.

Evidences?

 

[andyandy]

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. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

I've read this a few times....and i can't see where there is scope for any serious debate....re-write it to depolitize it - like make it about the failure to find ice-cream vans in Manchester....give it to 100 english speakers and then ask them what the "they" refers to in the 5th line of the reply - they'd all say ice-cream vans - even the dumb ones

 

[Upchurch]

This statement can be read as the bolded sections all refering to the same thing: areas where WMD's were though to have been kept, not the WMD's themselves.

Waitaminute. Your argument is that Rumsfeld was saying that he knew where the area where the WMD's were, not where the WMD's were? (and I don't seem to remember that "thought to have been kept" line in his reply)

What is the difference?

That's like saying: I know where the room is that has that box in it, but I don't know where the box is.

(I'm not trying to pick on you Zig, but you're the only one I've come across in this thread that has attempted to support Rumsfeld's statement saying what you guys are saying he said. ....I may need help parsing that sentence, if you have the time. )

 

[Ziggurat]

Incorrect. Let's review:
...
He was not asking why they had not been found. He stated that they had not been found. Stephanopoulos's question was concerning the consequences of having not found any WMD's to date and whether or not Rumsfeld was concerned (i.e. "curious") that no WMD's had been found.

Correction accepted. The essential point I wanted to make was that Stephanopoulos wasn't asking where the WMD's were, as Thai claimed, and your correction confirms this.

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all.

I take this to be referring to the last question. Namely, he is saying that it is not at all curious to him that despite the large control U.S. and coalition forces have/had in the country, they haven't found any WMD's.

Agreed.

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.

Rumsfeld is establishing what the area is that the coalition forces control.

Agreed.

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

"they" in both the first and second sentence clearly refers to WMD's as it is redundant for him to state that coalition forces know where coalition forces are (or to refer to them in the third person since the US is part of the coalition forces) and it is nonsensical to state that one area is in another area. The only other subject left are WMD's.

Wrong. One area can indeed be in another area, and quite obviously so. California is in America. Orange County is in California. Areas can be in other areas. So the only subject left is NOT WMD's.

People are also often ambiguous when they talk. Is it possible he meant WMD's and not areas or facilities? Sure. It's also possible he did mean areas or facilities. Since it's possible he meant something that he claimed he later meant, it's really hard to assert that he lied. If he meant what he now says he meant, then this is not an eloquent phrasing, because it's ambiguous and awkward where it should be clear and concise. But that kind of thing happens when you're talking.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

Here we see the difficulties of the English language. In the first sentence, "things" can be inferred to mean the contents of the facility. In the second sentence, "them" refers to the "things".

Assuming that Rumsfeld is implying that the facilities had, at least at one time, contained WMD's (no other subjects such as coalition forces, areas, or facilities make any sense), he sets up an uncertainty.

Sure.

Either he is contradicting his earlier statement in this response that "we know where they are" or he is backing off from the specificity of that statement by making it more along the lines of "we know where they may have been." At best, he is back peddling. At worst, he is contradicting himself.

Or he meant something different by "they" to begin with, in which there's no contradiction OR backpedalling.

Well, you skipped right over the pertinent part. Why didn't you parse the sentence that thaiboxerken stated was Rumsfeld's lie?

Because I've already done so, in both this thread and a previous thread (Refer to my post on the previous page where I bolded Rumsfeld's statement to parse it the way I think he meant it). Thai already knows this, and has refused to do what you have done for him: offer an actual argument rather than just endless repetition of the ccusation.

 

[Upchurch]

Wow! My whole point is that the "they" in that sentence refers to something else! You had no response to my argument, so you then jump to another sentence which DOES refer to WMD's. I point out that you got the verb tense on that sentence wrong, so you jump back to your original discredited and undefended claim, as if that's new. How clueless are you?

To be fair, what thaiboxerken quoted does match with the two transcripts provided in this thread so far. Do you have a version that uses the word "were"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Waitaminute. Your argument is that Rumsfeld was saying that he knew where the area where the WMD's were, not where the WMD's were? (and I don't seem to remember that "thought to have been kept" line in his reply)

What is the difference?

I'm saying Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the weapons had once been, but that they might not be there anymore. Part of the confusion comes from abiguity of tense: present tense for Rumsfeld when he gave the interview is past tense for us now. So if one uses the past tense now, it's not always obvious if that means past tense or present tense with respect to when the interview occured. If there were multiple past tenses of "were" which contained information about relative temporality, that might make it easier, but we'll have to make do with what English provides.

(I'm not trying to pick on you Zig, but you're the only one I've come across in this thread that has attempted to support Rumsfeld's statement saying what you guys are saying he said. ....I may need help parsing that sentence, if you have the time. )

Sorry, can't help you with that last jumble