Did Rumsfeld Lie?

[Jocko]

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

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

Whatever helps you sleep better. Lord knows you've yet to make a credible argument on your own merits; why not invent new criteria, huh?

 

[Jocko]

What is not moot is that he postured himself as possessing knowledge, not evidence.

Agreed, but again - to call it a lie, he had to "know" better... just as Ken is using the statement that he "knew" the sites were active to hang the term "lie" upon.

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.

Even Blix went before the UN and basically said that there was no way to know what was there, what had been there, what had been destroyed, etc. because of interference from the Hussein regime. There was no way to have any confidence that Hussein had disarmed, and his conduct suggested strongly the contrary.

In a post 9/11 world, that kind of benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it. The situation was at stalemate, with half the nations supposedly enforcing the containment actually profiting illegally from smuggled oil... there was very little chance of that status quo changing, and consequently very little chance of better intel becoming available in a timely manner.

You can say Bush overresponded to the perceived threat, and in hindsight I agree. But doing so one must acknowledge the conditions - all established by the Hussein regime and abetted by a toothless UN and corrupted security council - that led to that overreaction.

 

[Tailgater]

The first statement doesn't even support an exact location. He uses terms like AREA AROUND and SOMEWHAT in a direction. So he's really saying he knows they are somewhere, but not exactly. Just depends on how much you want to pick apart a vague statement. Either side could make a case about it and it looks like they have. Don't you know by now that all politicians insert words into seemingly concrete statements to leave things open for interpretation so drones can argue about what was a lie?

 

[fishbob]

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.

Taking the last two sentences out of context, you appear to be saying that the claim that the sanctions failed is absurd. Taking the entire paragraph into account indicates that you mean the opposite.
You been taking Rumsfeld lessons or what?

No evidence has been found that Iraq was involved in any way with the terrorist attacks on the US in Sept of 2001. There is considerable evidence that fundamentalist muslims did not like Saddam.
So if you are trying to be absolutely, definitely, completely clear about something, you got some esplainin' to do.

 

[Upchurch]

The first statement doesn't even support an exact location. He uses terms like AREA AROUND and SOMEWHAT in a direction. So he's really saying he knows they are somewhere, but not exactly. Just depends on how much you want to pick apart a vague statement.

St. Louis is somewhere about in the middle of the east side of the state. Columbia, MO is around the middle of the state. Kansas City is about that far again on the other side of Columbia.

Now, from these statements, would you interpret that I know where these places are located exactly or that I only have a guess?

Don't you know by now that all politicians insert words into seemingly concrete statements to leave things open for interpretation so drones can argue about what was a lie?

Definitely a case of COYA. My point is that it is a valid and reasonable position to hold that Rumsfeld stated that coalitian forces knew where the WMD's were at the time he made the comment.

 

[bjb]

I voted for lie.

The subject is:

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

The CIA guy asked Rumsfeld about his claims to *know* the location of the WMD's, and Rumsfeld said he never made such a statement. Rumsfeld did make such a statement so he was lying. That is lie #1.

When Rumsfeld said he 'knew' the location of the WMD's, he was certainly wrong, but he wasn't lying, assuming he had been given information that told him where there WMD's were. But if there was no reliable intelligence and Rumsfeld simply wanted to appear dead certain that he knew where the WMD's were located, then he was lying. This could be lie #2, the one the CIA guy accused Rumsfeld of telling. However, that would be very, very difficult to prove without having access to the same classified intelligence he possessed at the time.

What interests me is the CIA guy who asked the question in the first place. He may have had access to the information and knew Rumsfeld was lying (lie #2) way back when he claimed to know where the WMD's were.

By the way, I've read the transcripts and I've seen the TV interviews. There is no doubt that Rumsfeld wanted us to believe that he knew the location of the WMD's before the war. You guys can argue about what he 'meant' but that is definitely what he wanted us to believe. Also, there is no doubt that Rumsfeld denied that he had claimed to know where the WMD's were before the war.

 

[thaiboxerken]

He is just a former CIA analyst, what would he know about the intelligence?

 

[Tricky]

Even Blix went before the UN and basically said that there was no way to know what was there, what had been there, what had been destroyed, etc. because of interference from the Hussein regime. There was no way to have any confidence that Hussein had disarmed, and his conduct suggested strongly the contrary.

Blix might have agreed that at the time of the invasion that there was no way to know what had been destroyed etc. but that does not mean he felt that there would never be any way to know. That is why he spoke out forcefully against the invasion. He felt that we needed to give the inspections more time to work.

Yes, Saddam was stonewalling. It was a like pulling teeth to get anything done. But pulling teeth is still better than amputation, and at the time of the war, Saddam was already pretty much toothless, as the flight of his "elite fighting forces" revealed.

In a post 9/11 world, that kind of benefit of the doubt just doesn't cut it. The situation was at stalemate, with half the nations supposedly enforcing the containment actually profiting illegally from smuggled oil... there was very little chance of that status quo changing, and consequently very little chance of better intel becoming available in a timely manner.

I strongly disagree. Even if there were graft and corruption and even if we didn't know everything we wanted to know, the invasion was no way to deal with it. Yes, Saddam is gone. Yes they have a "democracy" which is looking more and more like Iran's "democracy". Was it worth the price? Was it worth the billions of dollars and thousands of lives? Was it worth squandering all of our political capital and having even our allies become distrustful of us? Has it made us safer from terrorism? I say the answer is no and I say that we should have known that the answer would be no.

You can say Bush over-responded to the perceived threat, and in hindsight I agree. But doing so one must acknowledge the conditions - all established by the Hussein regime and abetted by a toothless UN and corrupted security council - that led to that overreaction.

Saddam was a paper tiger by the time the "toothless" UN security council had done their work. You can argue that their methods were slow and subject to corruption. You can argue that they didn't fix everything. You can say all the bad stuff you want about them, and a good deal of it would be true. But they would still be far better than the US solution. And I don't think it relies on hindsight to recognize that. I think foresight and a willingness to listen to various viewpoints could have recognized the same thing.

 

[Jocko]

Saddam was a paper tiger by the time the "toothless" UN security council had done their work. You can argue that their methods were slow and subject to corruption. You can argue that they didn't fix everything. You can say all the bad stuff you want about them, and a good deal of it would be true. But they would still be far better than the US solution. And I don't think it relies on hindsight to recognize that. I think foresight and a willingness to listen to various viewpoints could have recognized the same thing.

Tricky, we're talking about Hussein with access to billions of dollars under the table from smuggled oil sales. BILLIONS. Maybe you're unconcerned with that scenario, but I'm not. As to the "various viewpoints," you can Google up a thousand viewpoints that tell you the Jews/GOP/martians perpetrated 9/11; that doesn't make them valid... past, present or future.

No one is demanding absolute perfection from the UN. I know graft happens. But there sure seems to be a hue and cry for absolute perfection from the Bush Administration.

 

[Ziggurat]

He is just a former CIA analyst, what would he know about the intelligence?

Are you talking about McGovern?

I have no idea what he knows. I only know what he says. And his track record is, well, lacking. For example, back in early 2004 he claimed that the August 2001 PDB was a smoking gun which proved Bush should have known about 9/11 and stopped it, and that Tenet would keep his job past the election because he could blackmail Bush with that PDB to keep his job. Well, the administration released most of that PDB, it wasn't the smoking gun McGovern claimed, none of the intelligence it contained was actionable, and Tenet left his post before the election. Was McGovern simply wrong, or did he know better but was lying? I'm guessing the first, but neither speaks particularly well of his trustworthiness as a source for information about intelligence.

 

[Tricky]

Tricky, we're talking about Hussein with access to billions of dollars under the table from smuggled oil sales. BILLIONS. Maybe you're unconcerned with that scenario, but I'm not.

I don't see any serious evidence for that scenario, so I'd put it on the back burner of things to be concerned about. Yeah, he probably had a lot of money. He couldn't get WMDs with it. He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

As to the "various viewpoints," you can Google up a thousand viewpoints that tell you the Jews/GOP/martians perpetrated 9/11; that doesn't make them valid... past, present or future.

I was talking about my viewpoint which I have held, modified slightly, since before the invasion. I thought it was a bad idea that would create more problems than it solved. I still think that. I thought that we would win the war easily but we would not be able to win the "peace". I still think that. I thought that in the absence of a strong head of country the various sects would turn on each other in bitter factionalism. I still think that. I thought many thousands would die when Saddam unleashed his WMDs in a final act of defiance. That one, I was wrong about, but then, I wasn't privy to intel. I believed that the Bush admin was telling us the truth about Saddam having WMDs, but that invading would just force him to use them. I've lost a little naivety since then.

No one is demanding absolute perfection from the UN. I know graft happens. But there sure seems to be a hue and cry for absolute perfection from the Bush Administration.

I've seen no hue and cry for absolute perfection from Bush. But incompetence on such a grand scale rightfully deserves scorn. Nor am I an automatic Bush basher. He has done a few things well. I even agree with him in principle about the immigration issue. But apart from that issue, his foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[Jocko]

I don't see any serious evidence for that scenario, so I'd put it on the back burner of things to be concerned about. Yeah, he probably had a lot of money. He couldn't get WMDs with it. He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

Couldn't, or didn't? You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that? And even if those particular things were inaccessible, are you really satisfied that nothing bad would come of that kind of loose money, and that those bad things would not find their way here?

Wow, you have a level of faith I cannot even conceive.

I was talking about my viewpoint which I have held, modified slightly, since before the invasion. I thought it was a bad idea that would create more problems than it solved. I still think that. I thought that we would win the war easily but we would not be able to win the "peace". I still think that. I thought that in the absence of a strong head of country the various sects would turn on each other in bitter factionalism. I still think that. I thought many thousands would die when Saddam unleashed his WMDs in a final act of defiance. That one, I was wrong about, but then, I wasn't privy to intel. I believed that the Bush admin was telling us the truth about Saddam having WMDs, but that invading would just force him to use them. I've lost a little naivety since then.

My point was that not all viewpoints are equally valid. You didn't have the intel and guessed one way; they had the intel and guessed differently. But the next time you and the president - whoever it is - differ on the right course of action, I'm still betting on the president.

Not to equate you to a fraud, but even a sham psychic is gonna be right sometimes.

I've seen no hue and cry for absolute perfection from Bush. But incompetence on such a grand scale rightfully deserves scorn. Nor am I an automatic Bush basher. He has done a few things well. I even agree with him in principle about the immigration issue. But apart from that issue, his foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster. I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

What is the sum-total of the post Iraq criticism if not post-hoc rationalization and Monday morning quaterbacking? What is this very thread about? It's not enough for people like Ken that Bush & Co. were wrong; no, they have to be liars as well.

That's blind, unthinking hatred, rooted largely in emotion and expressed largely in childish vitriol. I, too, calls 'em like I sees 'em.

 

[thaiboxerken]

You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that?

I think the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq suggests it.

 

[Tricky]

Couldn't, or didn't? You are seriously suggesting that the loose-weave net that was the sanctions actually prevented any of that? And even if those particular things were inaccessible, are you really satisfied that nothing bad would come of that kind of loose money, and that those bad things would not find their way here?

Wow, you have a level of faith I cannot even conceive.

Well, Jocko, there's a lot of bad stuff out there that might happen. The best plan is to focus on the stuff that is most likely, and I did not see a shred of evidence before the invasion that Saddam was much of a threat, even if he did have WMDs. My observation is that there wasn't a lot of attention paid to his WMDs until Bushco started talking it up. What we saw was nothing more than an advertising campaign for a war. I choose not to buy it.

My point was that not all viewpoints are equally valid. You didn't have the intel and guessed one way; they had the intel and guessed differently. But the next time you and the president - whoever it is - differ on the right course of action, I'm still betting on the president.

My point is that even if they had been right about WMDs, the invasion would have still been a bad idea. As we learn more, we find that intel was very mixed but we were only being told one side. So in retrospect, the decision was even more wrong in light of current information, but it was always wrong. And Bush was privvy to a lot more information than we were.

Not to equate you to a fraud, but even a sham psychic is gonna be right sometimes.

I've stated my reasons for my positions and I've weighed the evidence that is available. You may come to a different conclusion based on the same evidence, but I honestly don't see how. Still, I'm not saying that your position is based on just "guesses" as you seem to be suggesting about mine. I'd say the reason we disagree is that we have different views on what is important.

What is the sum-total of the post Iraq criticism if not post-hoc rationalization and Monday morning quaterbacking? What is this very thread about? It's not enough for people like Ken that Bush & Co. were wrong; no, they have to be liars as well.

I don't agree with everything they say, but I know that Ken was against the war from its very inception, as was I. It is incorrect to call that "post-hoc rationalization". I can probably produce a post I made before the invasion which shows that I have long held this position (with some modifications based on evidence). I have been wrong about some things and I am not ashamed of admitting them.

But even if it is impossible to prove that a person has held their position for any length of time, it is a mistake to accuse anyone of "Monday morning quarterbacking" unless you can show evidence that their opinions were formed on Monday morning. I don't think you can show that about any of the people on the opposite side from you in this issue.

But it is not wrong, and in fact admirable to use new evidence to bolster support for the position you already have. If you are honest, you will also consider evidence that damages your position and adjust your position accordingly. It is my opinion that most of the recent evidence has bolstered the position of those who opposed the war and a much smaller amount has damaged that position.

I think Bush and co have been shown to be, at the very least, misleading about the war, and I believe evidence supports this. While I am somewhat less inclined to hurl invective than some, I have very very low regard for our present administration, so my feelings are just as strong, if not my rhetoric.

That's blind, unthinking hatred, rooted largely in emotion and expressed largely in childish vitriol. I, too, calls 'em like I sees 'em.

As to the invective that is already flying around, flames should be kept in Flame Wars, IMO, where they can be done with style and wild abandon, but I am unlikely to convince Ken, Claus, Art or you of that.

Why can't we all just be friends?
Kumbaya

 

[Ziggurat]

He couldn't even buy uranium with it, so what good did it do?

Actually, he had plenty of uranium. The advantage to buying new uranium would be to make it harder to track his activities.

 

[Tricky]

Actually, he had plenty of uranium. The advantage to buying new uranium would be to make it harder to track his activities.

He did? Uranium that was of sufficient quality to make WMDs? Where was it?

BTW, uranium doesn't last forever. Enriched uranium lasts a much shorter time. Radioactive, you know.

 

[Art Vandelay]

It doesn't appear that you've thought about this very much.

So, what, anyone who disagrees with you cannot have had thought about it much?

Some things only "work" if you continue to use them.

This is not one of them.

No, I'm not saying that we would need to keep sanctions in place forever,

There are kids in high school now who weren't even born when the sanctions were first put into place. In a few more years, they'll be able to vote. How do you tell a voter "Just because these sanctions have been in place your entire life, that's no reason to think we'll have to keep them forever"? When the sanctions were first put into place, the intent was to induce compliance within the next few years, not decades. They failed.

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.

How about them actually working?

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.

Then you haven’t been paying attention.

After long emphasizing the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia, bin Ladin moved to other issues dealing with the U.S. attempt to destroy Islam. These included an opposition to UN sanctions against Iraq (which he blamed on the United States) as killing the Muslim Iraqi people and the assertion that the United States was supporting the Jews in an effort to "achieve full control over the Arab peninsula."(23) Bin Ladin claimed the United States did not rest after the "slaughter" of the Gulf War but instead pushed for the "dismemberment and the destruction...of what remains of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors."(24) These actions, according to bin Ladin, are meant to divert attention from the Jewish occupation of Jerusalem and the killing of Muslims in Palestine.

And again I ask, if the sanctions failed "definitely and completely", why didn't we find WMDs? What caused Saddam to ditch them?

The inspection regime, and the world attention that came with it.

The claim that sanctions caused Saddam to destroy his WMDs is supported by evidence, which trumps common sense every time.

And yet you present no such evidence.

It isn't a matter of measuring how "big" an assumption is, merely the number of solutions.

Huh?

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

Top of post 70.

No evidence has been found that Iraq was involved in any way with the terrorist attacks on the US in Sept of 2001. There is considerable evidence that fundamentalist muslims did not like Saddam.

Yes, that’s right. Just keep repeating those liberal talking points. Don’t bother actually addressing what I said.

So if you are trying to be absolutely, definitely, completely clear about something, you got some esplainin' to do.

You’ve got some espainin’ to do about why I have some esplainin’ to do.

Yes, Saddam was stonewalling. It was a like pulling teeth to get anything done. But pulling teeth is still better than amputation, and at the time of the war, Saddam was already pretty much toothless, as the flight of his "elite fighting forces" revealed.

Just because his forces were not able to stand up to the strongest military in the world, that hardly means that he was “toothless”. He had managed to defy the UN with impunity, and was poised to rebuild to the pre-war status quo the moment the world looked the other way.

 

[Art Vandelay]

BTW, uranium doesn't last forever. Enriched uranium lasts a much shorter time. Radioactive, you know.

Yes, that's true. Normal uranium lasts 4.5 billion years. Enriched uranium has a half-life of only 704 million years. Better use it up quickly! After a million years, one tenth of one percent will be gone!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Having uranium isn't enough, one has to be able to enrich it. How many centrifuges did we find in Iraq?

 

[Jocko]

Having uranium isn't enough, one has to be able to enrich it. How many centrifuges did we find in Iraq?

I can think of one, buried in a garden on government orders. Not crucial in and of itself, but it does bear asking why Saddam would own just one such centrifuge... oh, silly me, of course Ken believes that. Saddam would never be so clever as to bury others in different places. That's just plain impossible.