Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[clk]

That Google search yields 5,890,000 hits. Have you read through them all?

Do you really think it's possible for Rumsfeld (who is one of the most well documented people on the planet) to claim a link between Saddam and 9/11 without a single reporter, journalist, political pundit, or blogger documenting the quote or asking Rummy for evidence of such a link to 9/11?

It follows: If you don't think a link to AQ is a link to 9/11, then you are living in RummyWorld. Why else did the US invade Afghanistan?

No, it doesn't follow. It is piss poor logic. It is damn well possible to claim that Saddam had ties to AQ without saying that Saddam was tied to 9/11. In fact, that's exactly what the administration did. They even claimed that there was no evidence that he was tied to 9/11. But you apparently fail to understand that, or purposefully ignore it.

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

No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaida. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."

Was it Rumsfeld being quoted? Or was it someone else?

Doesn't matter. They were speaking for the administration, including Rumsfeld.

So let's recap:
Woman says that Rumsfeld claimed in NYT that Saddam had link to 9/11.
Woman was wrong.
Rumsfeld points out woman was wrong.
Claus thinks woman was right, and says Rumsfeld lied.
Claus provides no evidence of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11.
No website provides a documented quote of Rumsfeld making that claim, only quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what Claus claimed he said.
Claus continues to be dishonest, claiming that "[Rumsfeld] said it", but refusing to provide a quote of him saying it.
Claus makes a logical fallacy equating Saddam-AQ to Saddam-9/11.

 

[CFLarsen]

Do you really think it's possible for Rumsfeld (who is one of the most well documented people on the planet) to claim a link between Saddam and 9/11 without a single reporter, journalist, political pundit, or blogger documenting the quote or asking Rummy for evidence of such a link to 9/11?

I asked you a question: Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?

Doesn't matter. They were speaking for the administration, including Rumsfeld.

Sure it matters. You can't attribute a quote to someone, if someone else made the statement you are quoting from.

Woman says that Rumsfeld claimed in NYT that Saddam had link to 9/11.
Woman was wrong.

No, she was not.

Rumsfeld points out woman was wrong.
Claus thinks woman was right, and says Rumsfeld lied.
Claus provides no evidence of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11.
No website provides a documented quote of Rumsfeld making that claim, only quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what Claus claimed he said.
Claus continues to be dishonest, claiming that "[Rumsfeld] said it", but refusing to provide a quote of him saying it.
Claus makes a logical fallacy equating Saddam-AQ to Saddam-9/11.

No, no, no. I am not the one linking Saddam to 9/11. I am saying - with evidence - that Rummy linked Saddam to 9/11.

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

 

[clk]

I asked you a question: Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?



Sure it matters. You can't attribute a quote to someone, if someone else made the statement you are quoting from.



No, she was not.



No, no, no. I am not the one linking Saddam to 9/11. I am saying - with evidence - that Rummy linked Saddam to 9/11.

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

Where is the quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11?

 

[CFLarsen]

Where is the quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11?

Already addressed.

Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

Do you understand that you cannot focus on quotes, and then attribute a quote to Rumsfeld he didn't make?

 

[Mycroft]

Next, it will be argued that Osama bin Laden is not really Al Qaeda....

I don't see anyone who claimed that, nor did I see anyone who claimed Rumsfield said there is no link between Al Qaeda and 9/11.

 

[clk]

Already addressed.

Where did you provide the quote? All you provided was a non sequitur argument.

Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?

I read through the relevant ones, yes.

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

Irrelevant. Afghanistan has nothing to do with the argument.

Do you understand that you cannot focus on quotes, and then attribute a quote to Rumsfeld he didn't make?

How do you know he was not one of the officials to make the claim? He has repeatedly said that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You refuse to believe this. Am I making these quotes up out of thin air?

Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.

Rumsfeld has been repeatedly quoted as saying something that is exactly the opposite of what you claim he said. Yes or no?

 

[Polaris]

The problem I see here is a little bit beyond semantics. My knowledge of logical jargon is faulty, so bear with me here...

CFLarsen claims, by agreeing with the individual who questions Rumsfeld in the video-cum-transcript, that Rumsfeld said there was "bullet-proof evidence" of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Others ask for a link - but the only links I've seen of Rumsfeld admitting anything are of a bullet-proof link between Iraq and al-Qaida. CFLarsen makes the leap (understandable due to the guilt by association and pandering to the American people's emotions following 9/11) that a link between Saddam and al-Qaida = a link between Saddam and 9/11. I haven't seen a quote yet where Rumsfeld says the latter. I've seen him deny it however, in the quotes above. I didn't hear him say it (or anyone else in the Administration for that matter say it) before the opening of hostilities in Iraq. The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

 

[clk]

The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

Bingo, that was a good explanation. Too bad Claus is unwilling to acknowledge it. I don't know why he's arguing this point when it's extremely clear that he is wrong. Rumsfeld has misled people about a lot of other things, and he's lied before too. But Claus is not too bright, and is instead focusing his energies on arguing a point in which Rumsfeld is right, for once.

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did you provide the quote? All you provided was a non sequitur argument.

If that's what you want to call it.

I read through the relevant ones, yes.

How did you determine relevancy?

Irrelevant. Afghanistan has nothing to do with the argument.

It has everything to do with the argument. I'll help you, all you have to do is say Yes or No. The US invaded Afghanistan because that was where Al Qaeda was hiding, after killing almost 3,000 people in the September 11th attacks.

Yes or no?

How do you know he was not one of the officials to make the claim? He has repeatedly said that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You refuse to believe this. Am I making these quotes up out of thin air?

How do I know? Because when the Secretary of Defense makes a statement, he is attributed that statement. It carries a hell of a lot more credibility and power, if the Secretary of Defense says something, instead of some administration officials.

Rumsfeld has been repeatedly quoted as saying something that is exactly the opposite of what you claim he said. Yes or no?

Whoa...Rumsfeld has repeatedly flipflopped on this, trying to worm his way out of his previous statements. What he says today does not negate what he said earlier.

The problem I see here is a little bit beyond semantics. My knowledge of logical jargon is faulty, so bear with me here...

CFLarsen claims, by agreeing with the individual who questions Rumsfeld in the video-cum-transcript, that Rumsfeld said there was "bullet-proof evidence" of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Others ask for a link - but the only links I've seen of Rumsfeld admitting anything are of a bullet-proof link between Iraq and al-Qaida. CFLarsen makes the leap (understandable due to the guilt by association and pandering to the American people's emotions following 9/11) that a link between Saddam and al-Qaida = a link between Saddam and 9/11. I haven't seen a quote yet where Rumsfeld says the latter. I've seen him deny it however, in the quotes above. I didn't hear him say it (or anyone else in the Administration for that matter say it) before the opening of hostilities in Iraq. The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

The issue is not whether or not there is a link between Saddam and 9/11. I'm not arguing there is. The issue is whether Rumsfeld claimed there was. He did claim this. That's a major reason why we are at war right now.

 

[clk]

How do I know? Because when the Secretary of Defense makes a statement, he is attributed that statement. It carries a hell of a lot more credibility and power, if the Secretary of Defense says something, instead of some administration officials.

What difference does it make whether he said it in that specific article or not? He has repeatedly said that there was no link. If you were to show him that article when it came out and ask him if he agreed with the officals' views, he would have likely said: "I agree that there is no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11".

Whoa...Rumsfeld has repeatedly flipflopped on this, trying to worm his way out of his previous statements.

No he hasn't. Give me one example.

What he says today does not negate what he said earlier.

You're right. He's consistently said that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, so there is no negation.

The issue is whether Rumsfeld claimed there was. He did claim this.

Where the hell did he claim this?

You keep claiming that he said it, but you have provided zero evidence over the last 7 pages. Now either provide the quote, or shut up.

 

[CFLarsen]

You keep claiming that he said it, but you have provided zero evidence over the last 7 pages. Now either provide the quote, or shut up.

I've shown you. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.

The US invaded Afghanistan because that was where Al Qaeda was hiding, after killing almost 3,000 people in the September 11th attacks.

Yes or no?

How did you determine relevancy in your Google search?

 

[clk]

I've shown you. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.

So now you're claiming that you've shown evidence when it's clear you haven't. I should have known it was going to come down to this, you've used the same highly dishonest tactic in previous threads:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38212

I'm sure you remember that thread, Claus, where you claimed that a girl was harmed, but provided no evidence over 19 pages? You lost a lot of credibility in that thread by claiming to provide phantom evidence. BTW, if anyone has not read that thread, I highly recommend it, it's very funny.

Is that what this thread is going to turn into? If so, I'm not interested. I'm just going to quote RandFan from that thread, since it seems eerily appropriate:

7 pages and no evidence that this girl was harmed. Which raises the question, what is the point of the thread?

 

[CFLarsen]

So now you're claiming that you've shown evidence when it's clear you haven't. I should have known it was going to come down to this, you've used the same highly dishonest tactic in previous threads:
http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38212

I'm sure you remember that thread, Claus, where you claimed that a girl was harmed, but provided no evidence over 19 pages? You lost a lot of credibility in that thread by claiming to provide phantom evidence. BTW, if anyone has not read that thread, I highly recommend it, it's very funny.

Is that what this thread is going to turn into? If so, I'm not interested. I'm just going to quote RandFan from that thread, since it seems eerily appropriate:

The US invaded Afghanistan because that was where Al Qaeda was hiding, after killing almost 3,000 people in the September 11th attacks.

Yes or no?

How did you determine relevancy in your Google search?

 

[clk]

Claus,
Is it OK for me to use the same tactics that you use when debating? I assume yes. So let me get to your questions:

The US invaded Afghanistan because that was where Al Qaeda was hiding, after killing almost 3,000 people in the September 11th attacks.

Yes or no?

I've already answered this. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.

How did you determine relevancy in your Google search?

I've already answered this. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.

 

[Rob Lister]

So let's recap:
Woman says that Rumsfeld claimed in NYT that Saddam had link to 9/11.
Woman was wrong.
Rumsfeld points out woman was wrong.
Claus thinks woman was right, and says Rumsfeld lied.
Claus provides no evidence of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11.
No website provides a documented quote of Rumsfeld making that claim, only quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what Claus claimed he said.
Claus continues to be dishonest, claiming that "[Rumsfeld] said it", but refusing to provide a quote of him saying it.
Claus makes a logical fallacy equating Saddam-AQ to Saddam-9/11.

Clause* is asked repeatedly, many dozens of times of days to back up his assertion.
Clause* refuses and instead states he already has.


.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*Clause: A group of words with at least a subject and a verb which agrees with it.

 

[Kopji]

Meeting between hijacker, Iraqi agent discounted

In a second staff report released Wednesday, the [911] commission staff said that Mohamed Atta, the pilot of one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center and leader of the 19 hijackers, never met with Iraqi agents in Prague, Czech Republic. That purported meeting also has been cited as evidence of a possible al-Qaida connection to Iraq.

...In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

Harris Survey: Many Americans Still Think Saddam Was Behind 9/11
Editor and Publisher | December 31 2005

NEW YORK More than four years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 22% of adults believe that Saddam Hussein "helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11," according to a new Harris Poll. And nearly one in four (24%) of all adults wrongly believe that "several of the hijackers who attacked the United States on September 11 were Iraqis."

In other results bearing on support for the Iraq war, 26% of adults believe that Iraq "had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded," and 41% believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links to Al Qaeda."

While these numbers have declined in the past two years, Harris commented, “Many U.S. adults still believe some of the justifications for the invasion of Iraq, which have now been discredited,” raising questions about media coverage during this period.

These are the results of a nationwide Harris Poll of 1,961 U.S. adults between December 8 and 14, 2005.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2005/311205saddambehind.htm

"Office of Special Plans"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
The Office of Special Plans, which existed from September, 2002, to June, 2003, was a Pentagon unit created by Donald Rumsfeld and led by Douglas Feith, dealing with intelligence on Iraq.

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/030512fa_fact
“But they’ve taken the intelligence on weapons and expanded it beyond what was justified.” Speaking of the hawks, he said, “It appeared that they understood that to get the American people on their side they needed to come up with something more to say than ‘We’ve liberated Iraq and got rid of a tyrant.’ So they had to find some ties to weapons of mass destruction and were willing to allow a majority of Americans to incorrectly conclude that the invasion of Iraq had something to do with the World Trade Center.

'Ding'

...THE leak of part of a Department of Defence report has added fuel to the firestorm over Bush administration claims about the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The top-secret report by the Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) last September concluded that it could find no evidence of chemical weapons activity in Iraq. 'There is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons,'its one-page summary said.

The leak has put the White House on the defensive as controversy over the non-discovery of WMD grows

...Asked whether Bush was aware of the DIA report when he warned the UN about the threat , the official declined to comment, saying it was 'unclear' whether Bush or any senior members of the administration had seen the report. It would, however, be unusual if Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the most vigorous supporters of the war, had not read a report issued by his own in-house intelligence agency on the very issue upon which the war was predicated.
http://www.sundayherald.com/34463

But this is all really old stuff, except maybe the link about the mythical bio trailers. I'm sorry it mostly only remains on the antiwar sites instead of Fox News. The UCLA link has a choice bit about a Democrat swearing that he'd seen the evidence too. Hey, maybe someday history books will tell how the Democrats led us to war in Iraq over the protest of the Republicans.

History seems to be maintained by people who have an interest in telling the story. I don't think it represents something sinister, only human nature. Most of us survive by thinking of ourselves as good people trying to do the right thing. I would think it would be hard being Rumsfeld though.

Most of us were here and hearing it all live. If Rumsfeld is minimizing his responsibility for his role in all this, that seems a little sad for those on the ground living with it. Or dying in this case.

The "Office of Special Plans" was a tragedy and he owns it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,
Is it OK for me to use the same tactics that you use when debating? I assume yes. So let me get to your questions:



I've already answered this. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.



I've already answered this. Ignore it if that makes you feel better.

*shrug*

If that's your way out of this, fine with me.

 

[Rob Lister]

tsk. Provide the references clause

Nobody is fooled by your unwillingness to admit you can't

It's called: political wooism.

 

[clk]

tsk. Provide the references clause

He's not going to do it. This thread will end like the other thread of his that I linked to (http://206.225.95.123/forumlive/showthread.php?t=38212). When people keep asking him for evidence, he will continue to be dishonest and claim that he already provided it. Then he will disappear from the thread and ignore it. The pattern is becoming clear now. Too bad Claus does not have the character to admit his own errors.

 

[Ziggurat]

Al Qaeda was not behind 9-11?

Yes, Claus, they were behind 9/11. But you refuse to even acknowledge the point being made that a connection to Al Qaeda isn't synonymous with a connection to everything Al Qaeda has done. You won't even argue that it IS synonymous and that I'm wrong on that point: you merely assume it's axiomatic. In other words, you don't even know how to debate me - you're obsessed with proving a question that was never in doubt, because you think pointing that out is enough to prove you right. But it isn't, Claus, because that's not the point of disagreement between us. You're unbelievably blinkered when you debate, Claus. I don't think I've met anyone else on this message board so incapable of understanding the logic behind the argument of an opponent. There's a reason people get frustrated with you, and the problem isn't them. It's you.

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.....)

The war on terror is being fought against Islamic terrorists. Your inability to understand that Al Qaeda is but a subset of that larger group (whose threat to us comes from their subscription to a violent, supremacist, and expansionist ideology, not merely their membership in a particular organizational structure) betrays your own ignorance, not those who have defended Rumsfeld. If you honestly never got that answer before, it's most likely because people don't have the patience to deal with your refusal to actually engage in debate, rather than just repetition of nonsequitors which you have somehow convinced yourself are actually obvious logical progressions.