Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[specious_reasons]

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

How about this:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, ice cream. Key goal of Scout Troop #42 is finding some ice cream. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Baskin Robbins up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find chocolate there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how many Boy Scouts now have in Manchester, they haven't found any ice cream?

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 the Boy Scouts frequent is substantial. It happens not to be the area where the ice cream was dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Manchester 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 -- Girl Scouts are scaring the boys. They are tough. And the Boy Scouts are currently in there with theCub Scouts, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, giving them cooties 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 ice cream 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.

 

[Ziggurat]

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"?

You misunderstand (though if you haven't been following closely, I admit I was ambiguous in some of my references). "Were" was used in a different sentence. Thai misinterpreted the meaning of that sentence, and I was correcting his interpretation of that sentence based on the verb tense. He tried to support his contention by noting that present tense was used in the sentence you mention. That argument would work if his interpretation of the subject of that sentence were unambiguously correct, but since that is the whole point of contention, that claim doesn't actually advance his argument any, and he should have known that. I am not contending that he actually misquoted.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Yes. I spotted that on re-read. I clarified my statement.

So the only subject left is NOT WMD's.

Woops. How has WMD's been excluded? And are you saying that the area controlled by coalition forces are within the area describes in "They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

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.

He had not yet mentioned "facilities". Given that he introduced "facilities" as his second point and had not mentioned them at all until that point, it is difficult to believe or even show that he was referring to facilities.

As for the possibilities of "areas", I'll admit that I am not familiar enough with Iraqi geography nor with where the coalition forces were at that particular time to know whether or not they overlap with the area he described. If he is referring to an area, I find it odd that he refers to "areas" as a "they" and that he feels to point out that the coalition forces know where these areas are.

It would be equivalent to me saying that I am in the midwestern states of the US and I know where the midwestern states of the US are. Why bother pointing out that I know where a location is if I have already admitted to knowing that I am in that location?

If he is referring to an area, it is an extremely clumsy and pointless turn of phrase.

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.

Another possibility is that he did some serious backpeddling, like I mentioned. Or, he simply contradicted himself, which also happens quite often when you talking off the top of your head.

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

I disagree that he did mean a "they" different from WMD's because that is a rather large stretch, imho, and not terribly consistent with the immediate context of the sentence. He was either inconsistent with the immediate context, or he was inconsistent with what he said later on.

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.

Yeah, I'm not going back through pages and pages of another thread.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural? Where as "weapons of mass distruction" is plural and, thus, matches the "they"?

After all, the question remains: "is our children learning"?

 

[Upchurch]

"Were" was used in a different sentence.

Ah. What sentence?

 

[Upchurch]

I'm saying Rumsfeld claimed that he knew where the weapons had once been, but that they might not be there anymore.

I agree that he said that, but not until two paragraphs later. He originally used present tense.

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.

So don't view it from a current point of view. I'm flexible enough to read it from the perspective of someone hearing it at the time it was said and, in fact, have done so. This ambiguity does not really apply.

Sorry, can't help you with that last jumble

phttt. and you call yourself a parser.

(or rather, I will infer such from your use of the "with" in the above quote. )

 

[BryanLower]

I disagree that he did mean a "they" different from WMD's because that is a rather large stretch, imho, and not terribly consistent with the immediate context of the sentence. He was either inconsistent with the immediate context, or he was inconsistent with what he said later on.

I've beeen waaaaay too busy today to follow this or any other thread. I'll just say "yeah, me too" to this post.

I will only add that if it takes this much stretching to make the "they" something other than WMD, then Occam's Razor should shave those other possibilities off. I've re-read the transcript over and over, and it still doesn't make sense that he's talking about anything but WMD.

 

[Ziggurat]

Woops. How has WMD's been excluded?

Bad phrasing on my part. I meant WMD's aren't the only subject left, that there is more than one subject to choose from.

He had not yet mentioned "facilities". Given that he introduced "facilities" as his second point and had not mentioned them at all until that point, it is difficult to believe or even show that he was referring to facilities.

It's difficult to prove (pronouns really can be ambiguous), but why is it difficult to believe that as a possibility? It's a spoken statement. We sometimes get ahead of ourselves. That would be harder to argue if this were written, but it isn't. And the actually, the phrasing ("Secondly, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them..." rather than the more natural "Secondly, there are dozens of criminal facilities") suggests to me that he might actually be trying to backtrack to define what he meant by "they", but continues to talk of facilities in terms of "they" and "them" pronouns.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural? Where as "weapons of mass distruction" is plural and, thus, matches the "they"?

Awkwardness. Nobody corrects your grammar in realtime.

And I'll give you an example of how you can screw up while talking in an even more dramatic case. Cheney was giving an interview where he said "... we believe he [Saddam] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." Sounds like a pretty dramatic and false claim. But it really wasn't very remarkable at all, and didn't evoke ANY further questioning. Why? Because it was clear in context that he meant that saddam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, not actual nuclear weapons. In fact, the latter is a logical impossibility, because EVERYONE agrees that Saddam never had working nuclear weapons, only a program, and you can't reconstitute what you never had. Cheney slipped up, but it was clear it was a slip-up of speach, and that's why it didn't get a follow-up question at the time. He probably didn't notice his screwup, the interviewer understood him, and they both kept going, but the misinterpretation is there. Is the awkwardness and ambiguity I'm attributing to Rumsfeld really a bigger slip of speech than that? Is it really worse than anyone else you've ever seen quoted?

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah. What sentence?

Thai had claimed:

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

So actually, "were" comes from Thai's own use (I misremembered - that little trackback arrow in quotes comes in handy for this sort of thing). Rumsfeld never directly states in this response that the WMD's were at the "criminal facilities", but we pretty much all agree that he implies that the WMD's were there at some point in the past. But Thai is the only one who thought that claims of knowledge of past location are synonymous with claims of knowledge of present location.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wait, now you're using MY words to show that Rumsfeld didn't lie? What the hell is that?

 

[Art Vandelay]

I will only add that if it takes this much stretching to make the "they" something other than WMD, then Occam's Razor should shave those other possibilities off.

The point, though, is that we are not trying to figure out what the most likely interpretation of the statement is. The issue is whether there is no interpretation that doesn't make Rumsfeld a liar.

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

You should be careful about referring to specific lines. Remember that the number of lines that something takes up can vary wildly depending on computer setting.

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.

A better analogy would be "I know where the room that had the box is, but I don't know where the box is".

Woops. How has WMD's been excluded?

I don't think that he said they have been. He said "So the only subject left is NOT WMD's." In other words "It is not the case that WMD are the only subject left", not "WMD are not a subject that is left".

It would be equivalent to me saying that I am in the midwestern states of the US and I know where the midwestern states of the US are.

No, he's saying that they aren't in the areas in question. Furthermore, just because you are in an area does not mean that you know all properties of that area. For instance, one could have been in the area that
in which Saddam was hiding, without knowing where the area in which Saddam was hiding was.

As for your parsing on the previous page, how do you reconcile the fact that "the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed" is singular and "they" is plural?

It's quite possibly him simply misspeaking. Like how you said "where as" instead of "whereas" and "were" instead of "where", or how Ziggurat said "though" instead of "thought". These things happen.

I agree that he said that, but not until two paragraphs later. He originally used present tense.

No, he said "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." "Were" is past tense.

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.

Actually, there is; it's called "perfect", it is accomplished through the helping verb "have", and you used that tense (apparently, without even realizing it).

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

"To have been kept" is present perfect. It being the object of the past tense of "think" establishes it as referring to the past. If instead of saying "to have been kept", you had said "to be kept", Upchurch's confusion would be more understandable. "Have been kept" is present perfect: relative to this time, them being kept lies in the past. "Had been kept" is past perfect: relative to some past time, then being kept lies in the past. "Will have been kept" is future perfect: relative to some future time, them being kept lies in the past.

 

[Upchurch]

It's difficult to prove (pronouns really can be ambiguous), but why is it difficult to believe that as a possibility? It's a spoken statement. We sometimes get ahead of ourselves. That would be harder to argue if this were written, but it isn't. And the actually, the phrasing ("Secondly, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them..." rather than the more natural "Secondly, there are dozens of criminal facilities") suggests to me that he might actually be trying to backtrack to define what he meant by "they", but continues to talk of facilities in terms of "they" and "them" pronouns.

Before we get too much more into this (and because I'm running out of time). Do you still believe that the the people who read Rumsfeld's statement the same way that I do (currently 40:9) are dumbstruck or can you at least see how we reached have reached the conclusion that we have?

For my part, I at least understand how you can interpret it the way you do. I don't agree, but I understand. Like BryanLower, I think your explanation of Rumsfeld's statement is the more unnecessarily complex of the two presented. Your explanation requires that he was ambiguous and made a grammar mistake. Mine (the most charitable version) only requires that he was ambiguous.

Language, by its very nature, is imprecise, contextual, and open to interpretation. Going into this level of analysis and allowing that people can make mistakes, it is conceivable that you could change the meaning of any statement to mean nearly anything but what the person actually meant.

and now I'm out of time. *sigh*

 

[Ziggurat]

Wait, now you're using MY words to show that Rumsfeld didn't lie? What the hell is that?

No, Thai. I'm using your words to show that you're an idiot. Try to keep up, will you?

 

[andyandy]

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, ice cream vans. Key goal of Scout Troop #42 is finding some ice cream vans. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Baskin Robbins supply depot up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find chocolate there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how many Boy Scouts now have in Manchester, they haven't found any ice cream vans?

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 the Boy Scouts frequent is substantial. It happens not to be the area where the ice cream vans were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Manchester 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 -- Girl Scouts are scaring the boys. They are tough. And the Boy Scouts are currently in there with theCub Scouts, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, giving them cooties 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 extra large freight 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.

lol - very good....i think it needs to be ice cream vans though - otherwise the ice cream would take an "it" rather than a "they" - and so the above example would imply that "they" meant "boy scouts"......sorry to be a pedant ......now all we need is to give it to 100 english speakers and get the results

 

[Upchurch]

Dang it! Okay, one more quick one.

No, he said "It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed." "Were" is past tense.

Wrong sentence. The one under question is "We know where they are" and specifically what "they" is referring to. "Are" is present tense.

 

[specious_reasons]

lol - very good....i think it needs to be ice cream vans though - otherwise the ice cream would take an "it" rather than a "they" - and so the above example would imply that "they" meant "boy scouts"......sorry to be a pedant ......now all we need is to give it to 100 english speakers and get the results

I should have put a "[sic]" in there. I thought it quite proves the point that the one sentence makes less sense when plural "WMDs" is replaced with singular "ice-cream".

 

[Ziggurat]

Before we get too much more into this (and because I'm running out of time). Do you still believe that the the people who read Rumsfeld's statement the same way that I do (currently 40:9) are dumbstruck or can you at least see how we reached have reached the conclusion that we have?

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.

BTW, I think this may have been a little essoteric (I knew it would go over Thai's head but I hoped someone else would pick it up), but "dumb" has a meaning other than "stupid", and it's actually that other sense of the word which I intended and which, I think, makes the most sense in context. And your response obviously shows that you are not dumbstruck.

 

[thaiboxerken]

There are alot of people that will simply believe Rummy when he says "I didn't lie" when he did.

 

[Tricky]

Ziggy Ziggy Ziggy, you are invoking every possible odd interpretation of Rummy's words and completely (intentionally?) ignoring the ones that are the most easily parsed. Yes, you could be right about what Rummy meant if you contort yourself to have your lips speaking out of your hat, your eyballs tunneled down some tube, and your fingers crossed behind your back. (Please, don't hurt yourself.)

No telling where your head will wind up.

 

[BPSCG]

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

 

[Elind]

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

I'm not a fan of Rummy, but this post, and poll, is a good example of spin that has the desired result.

70% of Skeptic respondent say that he "clearly" knew where the WMDs were. Yet Rummy said they were "somewhat" ("somewhere"?) in Iraq.

Good to know that at least 10% of the people here know how to distinguish fact from somewhat.