Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[thaiboxerken]

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

 

[Jocko]

You think you're so clever...

Only compared to some, Ken. Only compared to some.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

Wrong. The lie is where Rummy claims that he never claimed he knew.

 

[Jocko]

Wrong. The lie is where Rummy claims that he never claimed he knew.

You know, in any race, there are two people who cross the finish line all by themselves. The first guy, and the last guy.

When you find yourself all alone at the finish line, it's very important that you know which one you are.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I seem to be at the finish line with 44 other people, as of now.

 

[Tricky]

You know, in any race, there are two people who cross the finish line all by themselves. The first guy, and the last guy.

When you find yourself all alone at the finish line, it's very important that you know which one you are.

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Many races are competitive at the start and/or at the finish. In almost every race there are people in the middle cross the line by themselves.

Plus, there is nothing that clearly connects it to the discussion.

 

[Jocko]

I seem to be at the finish line with 44 other people, as of now.

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

 

[Jocko]

That is one of the worst analogies I've ever heard. Many races are competitive at the start and/or at the finish. In almost every race there are people in the middle cross the line by themselves.

Plus, there is nothing that clearly connects it to the discussion.

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't charge anything for it. Still, Ken likes it and that's all that matters.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You sure about that? Are you telling a lie or just mistaken?

 

[Tricky]

Yeah, I know. That's why I didn't charge anything for it. Still, Ken likes it and that's all that matters.

LOL. Good thing. Are you sure you want to be a greeting card epigrammist?

Let's take a step back here.

The remarks were made three years ago. Had Rumsfeld felt that he was being misunderstood about there "definitely" being WMDs, why didn't he say something at the time? Why is it so much later that he is trying to backpedal? He sounds like some failed prophet of the apocalypse trying to explain why the world didn't come to an end as predicted.

 

[Jocko]

You sure about that? Are you telling a lie or just mistaken?

^^ See that, Ken? ^^​

That's called a "quote." Grownups use them to let other grownups know what they're responding to. I suggest you investigate the many ways in which inclusion of these "quote" may facilitate a more effective, less confusing exchange. You know, so others have the slightest freaking idea of what you're talking about.

 

[Jocko]

LOL. Good thing. Are you sure you want to be a greeting card epigrammist?

Let's take a step back here.

The remarks were made three years ago. Had Rumsfeld felt that he was being misunderstood about there "definitely" being WMDs, why didn't he say something at the time? Why is it so much later that he is trying to backpedal? He sounds like some failed prophet of the apocalypse trying to explain why the world didn't come to an end as predicted.

You may well be right. But still, you can attribute the issue to many other things (hubris, overconfidence, wishful thinking, poor recollection, being off-the-cuff in the first place, etc.) before you arrive at "lie."

I recall several instances of administration officials admitting they were wrong about WMDs (don't remember if Rumsfeld was among them), which seems like a no-brainer; of course they were wrong about them. But Ken's insistence on a dark plot to foist a lie (read: deliberate falsehood perpetrated in spite of knowing things were otherwise) on the American public is just plain silly. The only one who knows that for sure is Rumsfeld.

Of course, when you get 45 people on the internet to vote, I guess there's no need to actually deal with the realities.

 

[Tricky]

You may well be right. But still, you can attribute the issue to many other things (hubris, overconfidence, wishful thinking, poor recollection, being off-the-cuff in the first place, etc.) before you arrive at "lie."

I recall several instances of administration officials admitting they were wrong about WMDs (don't remember if Rumsfeld was among them), which seems like a no-brainer; of course they were wrong about them. But Ken's insistence on a dark plot to foist a lie (read: deliberate falsehood perpetrated in spite of knowing things were otherwise) on the American public is just plain silly. The only one who knows that for sure is Rumsfeld.

Of course, when you get 45 people on the internet to vote, I guess there's no need to actually deal with the realities.

Well, I voted "lie" because with the limited options, that seemed the most likely. Now I know you and TBK have crossed swords from time to time, so I doubt this little dust-up is really about the poll.

My personal feeling is that Rumsfeld intentionally weasel-worded his comments so he would have plausible deniability later, but he had every intention of making it sound like he was sure that there were WMDs. Call it dissembling if you like, but he was either wrong or deliberately deceptive, IMO.

Ken. Your poll was set up to give a predictable response. I mostly agree with you in principle, but name-calling doesn't further your position. Don't you martial artists learn anything about subtlety?

 

[Jocko]

Call it dissembling if you like, but he was either wrong or deliberately deceptive, IMO.

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.

We know the latter existed, wrong though it was. Evidence is not proof. But there's absolutely no reason to suspect that the former existed, unless you just have a burr up your @$$ about Bush and willingly sell out to paranoid fantasy in order to support that hatred. Enter Ken and his little poll.

 

[Tailgater]

He's probably doing more dodging than he needs to. Recently on discovery times (I think), they showed a huge complex in Iran on satellite that the UN had questioned about developing nukes. The entire thing was torn down and raked with dirt within the week...I don't doubt there could have been some credible evidence of sites, but all they had to do was move what was in them. But look what happens when someone "leaks" info to try and prove something. So, i'd say he's probably juggling between what he can say and what the public wants to hear. Insert some lying? I would be more surprised if he just told the truth.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

The lie isn't about having WMD's or not, it's about his claim that he didn't claim to know where they were. Try and keep up. And yes, the poll was posted keeping in mind that I figured the results would be in my favor. It's because I know most people can understand english in this forum.

 

[Almo]

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

That seems to me to be a facecious statement with this meaning: "We know they are in Iraq. We'll find them."

Cool: the 60 sec between posts saved me from a double post.

 

[Jocko]

The lie isn't about having WMD's or not, it's about his claim that he didn't claim to know where they were.

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?

And you think that's an issue? Christ, at least Clinton lied under oath, and I keep hearing from fruitcakes like you about how trivial that was.

Try and keep up.

If you'd stop moving your goalposts, I wouldn't have such a hard time keeping up, now would I?

 

[Rob Lister]

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

That seems to me to be a facecious statement with this meaning: "We know they are in Iraq. We'll find them."

Cool: the 60 sec between posts saved me from a double post.

You should have used the 60 seconds to read what it was "they" and "they're" referred to.

 

[Almo]

You should have used the 60 seconds to read what it was "they" and "they're" referred to.

Sorry about that. Was just going by what I remembered from when I saw him say that on TV live.

ETA: Okay, i just went and read the transcript at the site listed. It still looks to me like he meant "Oh they're [WMD] there. We just have to actually find them." What am I missing?