Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[WildCat]

Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?

"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Knowing what area of the country they are in does not equate to an exact address.

In which case, it really all comes down to whether or not Rumsfeld really thought Iraq possessed WMD's - and that is certainly not something this thread is going to resolve.

 

[Tricky]

Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

How about a compromise. I will admit that I don't have a link for Donald admitting to those exact words if you will admit that he intentionally misled people into believing there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue. The issue is that the things he mislead us about lead to the deaths of thousands of people and, in my opinion, harmed the US and the rest of the world greatly. To me, an honorable man would own up to those misleadings. Neither he nor Bush has ever done so, in spite of being heckled by having their own words, or reasonable approximations of them, brought out and used against them. The least they could do is say, "I was wrong". The right thing would be to say, "I intentionally misled you." But of course, that only happens in the movies.

 

[Evolver]

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue.

No?

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

 

[Tricky]

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue.

No?

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

My point was that politicians lie. We all know it. We all expect it. It would be tremendously hard to prove that it was a lie, because regardless of the preponderance of evidence, Bushco could always say that they were simply mistaken, not lying. Now of course, most rational people are going to roll their eyes at that, but proving it in a court of law is a different matter. "Deliberate" is a very difficult thing to prove.

And for my part, I don't even care if Rumsfeld and the other "misled" people are punished for doing what they mistakenly believed was right. I just want those incompetents out of my government. I realize that a mother of a dead soldier might disagree with me and I would understand if they tried to get revenge. I don't think it would do any good overall.

The thing that gets to me is that Bushco and his apologists still seem to be arguing that there was a good reason for going to war, even if we cooked the evidence and even if the results of the war have been almost unarguably damaging to the US. I believe that to suggest that this war was wise is a position that is untenable. I want to stop these "honest mistakes" and get back to being a country that people trust. Bush has done more to ruin the reputation of the country I love than any person since... well... Reagan.

 

[CFLarsen]

Knowing what area of the country they are in does not equate to an exact address.

Somebody must have seen them somewhere. Otherwise, the CIA would be lying.

....Right?

I have, but most of it is too convoluted and repetitious. You started playing semantics after people pointed out that the article did not say what you claimed it did. Now I have no idea what your position is.

Post #184.

It only took you less than an hour to forget what I posted.

CFLarsen thinks that's the same thing. He can't understand that the claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda (what Rumsfeld claimed) is a DIFFERENT claim than Iraq having ties to 9/11 (what Rumsfeld never said). So you can only understand CF's "argument" if you start from that broken axiom, which is that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda automatically means a connection between Iraq and everything Al Qaeda does. That's absurd, of course, but there you have it.

I've abandoned the thread because it's just become CF defending that axiom without even being able to explain coherently that that's where the breakdown is coming from.

Al Qaeda was not behind 9-11?

Can you tell me who the war on terror is fought against, if not Al Qaeda? (I've asked this quite a number of times to people who defend Rumsfeld, but there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of answering it. Hmmm.....)

 

[Polaris]

But...

Um...

No, forget it, I'm not gonna punch this tar baby.

 

[President Bush]

Can you tell me who the war on terror is fought against, if not Al Qaeda?

That guy directly behind you. Right where you are sitting now. Don't turn around. Hold perfectly still. Don't say a word. Just do what we say.

 

[HarryKeogh]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.

But if we want to play games we can, by Claus' logic, say Claus has links to Uri Geller.

 

[Tricky]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.

I'll gladly accept this compromise. I think though that it has been shown that Rumsfeld knew that he was indirectly implying that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, or at the very least, he knew that many people had that impression, and he did absolutely nothing to dispell it, even though he knew it was not supported by evidence. You might call it dissembling more than outright lying.

 

[WildCat]

Somebody must have seen them somewhere. Otherwise, the CIA would be lying.

....Right?

No, it was probably an educated guess. If there were WMD's in Iraq it would only make sense that they were in this area, the "Sunni Triangle" as this is where the Hussein regimes base of support was and where his most trusted people were.

I wouldn't rule out that Rumsfelds statement was also aimed at making the Iraqi's think we knew where they were, in order to get them to move them and exposing where they actually were.

 

[CFLarsen]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time. You think that Saddam Hussein's government did anything without an explicit order from Saddam himself?

But if we want to play games we can, by Claus' logic, say Claus has links to Uri Geller.

How so?

No, it was probably an educated guess. If there were WMD's in Iraq it would only make sense that they were in this area, the "Sunni Triangle" as this is where the Hussein regimes base of support was and where his most trusted people were.

I wouldn't rule out that Rumsfelds statement was also aimed at making the Iraqi's think we knew where they were, in order to get them to move them and exposing where they actually were.

The point is not where they were, but that they were somewhere. They existed, and he knew where they were. He was very clear about that.

 

[clk]

Post #184.

It only took you less than an hour to forget what I posted.

Whatever. You were still wrong in your original post, and have yet to admit it. The NY Times article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you agree or not?

 

[Polaris]

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time. You think that Saddam Hussein's government did anything without an explicit order from Saddam himself?

Nothing naive about it at all - it's the clearest example so far of what they've been trying to say. Did they use 9/11 to bolster emotional support for Iraq? You bet. But Rumsfeld never said specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. That's been proven in this thread. Al-Qaida is more than just 9/11 - specifically the line between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein (other than the fact that Hussein ppenly celebrated 9/11) is that he harbored al-Zarqawi, because, as you say, his government did nothing without his say-so. Zarqawi didn't arrive there until after 9/11 - he was wounded in Afghanistan, fighting American forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, which began in October, 2001.

"After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. Zarqawi supposedly traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. [8] He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

 

[HarryKeogh]

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time.

C'mon, more naive than thinking Darat walks on drumsticks?

How so?

You've had interchanges with Randi/JREF.

Randi/JREF has had interchanges with Geller.

There is a "link" between you and Uri Geller. Remember, "link" not meaning "having a hand in" or anything like that (as you mentioned in post #184) but just a link. Sort of like the link between Saddam, Al Qaida, and 9/11.

It's Claus Logic 101.

 

[CFLarsen]

Whatever. You were still wrong in your original post, and have yet to admit it. The NY Times article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you agree or not?

No, I don't agree. That would require of me that I closed my eyes to reality.

Nothing naive about it at all - it's the clearest example so far of what they've been trying to say. Did they use 9/11 to bolster emotional support for Iraq? You bet. But Rumsfeld never said specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. That's been proven in this thread.

Who has said that Rumsfeld specifically said that Saddam was behind 9/11? Please show me where.

Al-Qaida is more than just 9/11 - specifically the line between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein (other than the fact that Hussein ppenly celebrated 9/11) is that he harbored al-Zarqawi, because, as you say, his government did nothing without his say-so. Zarqawi didn't arrive there until after 9/11 - he was wounded in Afghanistan, fighting American forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, which began in October, 2001.

There you have it: Not only "link", but "support".

You've had interchanges with Randi/JREF.

Randi/JREF has had interchanges with Geller.

There is a "link" between you and Uri Geller. Remember, "link" not meaning "having a hand in" or anything like that (as you mentioned in post #184) but just a link. Sort of like the link between Saddam, Al Qaida, and 9/11.

It's Claus Logic 101.

Now you are plain dishonest. "Link" is not the same as "interchange". Saddam supported Al Qaeda - or so the story goes.

I don't support Geller, and neither does JREF.

HarryKeogh Logic 101 says that Randi supports Geller. Way to go.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Now you are plain dishonest. "Link" is not the same as "interchange". Saddam supported Al Qaeda - or so the story goes.

I don't support Geller, and neither does JREF.

HarryKeogh Logic 101 says that Randi supports Geller. Way to go.

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!

 

[aerocontrols]

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!

Words mean whatever Claus wants them to mean.

Did you know, for instance, that Socialist countries aren't free?

 

[CFLarsen]

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!

Oh, come on! You think Rumsfeld didn't mean support? You are more naive than I thought. Or, possibly, an apologist of a disturbing magnitude.

But, OK. Let's go with that for a moment: Rumsfeld argues that we should invade Iraq, because Al Qaeda is linked to Saddam the same way Randi is linked to Geller.

Do you think that is a valid reason to invade Iraq?

 

[clk]

No, I don't agree. That would require of me that I closed my eyes to reality.

Let's see...in your OP, you said that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11, according to the Sept. 27th issue of the NYT. Yet, in that issue of the NYT, the paper states:

Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States.

That quote is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. What part of this argument do you not understand? I even provided you with a link with Rumsfeld saying exactly the opposite of what you claimed he said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

Yet you continue to claim that Rumsfeld stated that there was a link. Now either provide evidence that he directly linked Saddam to 9/11, or shut up. And don't start playing semantical games.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Oh, come on! You think Rumsfeld didn't mean support? You are more naive than I thought. Or, possibly, an apologist of a disturbing magnitude.

But, OK. Let's go with that for a moment: Rumsfeld argues that we should invade Iraq, because Al Qaeda is linked to Saddam the same way Randi is linked to Geller.

Do you think that is a valid reason to invade Iraq?

okay, let's see if we can do this without being rude or irritating. We're just two skeptics speaking to each other trying to get at the truth.

As other people have said, it seems very likely the Bush administration would have liked us to believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 but they made a point of not saying it directly.

My only fault with this entire thread is that woman saying he said one thing when he did not come out and say it. It can be spun anyway one wants but did he say he had bulletproof evidence of a link between Sadaam and 9/11? No, he didn't. If she was going to quote the "bullet-proof evidence" portion correctly why didn't she correctly quote the party that Rumsfeld said he had the evidence against?

There are plenty of things Rumsfeld has been wrong about. Why are you wasting time attacking him for the time he was right?

And to answer your question: Of course not.