Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[Mark]

Let's think about this for a moment, shall we? We have an action (Bush's rhetoric) and we have a phenomenon (people believing Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks). We have a hypothesis that the action resulted in the phenomenon. What's the basis for this conclusion? Well, nothing, really. First off, we have NO evidence for what led people to believe what they believed. Bush isn't the only source of information for anyone, and people often come to conclusions even without being told of an answer. Secondly, the hypothesis is basically that Bush created a belief in something that, by the article's own admission, wasn't what he actually said - so we've got to assume that all those people didn't just believe Bush, but they all either misunderstood or extrapolated from what he said, AND that they all adopted a belief based on this misunderstanding or extrapolation, despite Bush having never said it. Is that possible? Maybe. Is there evidence that happened? No.

But it's even worse than that. Let's assume, to be generous, that what Bush says IS that formative of opinions (not something I actually believe is the case). Did he form this particular opinion by his rhetoric? Again, we can't tell from this article. Why? Because we don't know what public opinion was BEFORE he started talking about Iraq. If the numbers started out higher, then isn't it just as possible that the ACTUAL statements from the Bush administration (which included explicit statements that we had no evidence Saddam had a hand in 9/11) actually decreased the percentage of people who thought Saddam was involved in 9/11? We're missing the crucial bit of information, even with the most generous interpretation I can give you.

So, what's the real numbers? I don't know. It's tough because different polls don't all ask the same question, so comparing numbers at different times isn't straightforward. But IIRC, a poll done on 9/13/2001 showed that 78% of the US thought that it was at least likely Saddam was involved in the attacks - that's a slightly broader classification, of course, but it's entirely possible that the number who thought he WAS involved still started out higher than the 45% being cited here.

In other words, all you've got are wild assumptions and rampant speculation. What you do NOT have is proof of any lie, or even a deception.

So, basically, you admit they may (they did) have tried to deceive, but if people believed it, it was probably from some other source? Pretty convoluted defense, if you ask me.

The simplest explanation is that Americans by and large believed their leaders. The fact that Bush and company did deliberately try to deceive is undeniable. See my post above.

 

[Jocko]

When they mention them in the same breath over and over and over again, there is a concerted effort to influence perception, with plausible deniability. The fact that you fell for it does not mean it didn't happen.

Er, Mark... if you're saying they said something they didn't say, then I'm not the one falling for anything.

I said I agreed that it was part of a larger PR campaign, but what you see as plausible deniability I see as an accurate statement that there's no institutional difference between AQ that flew planes on 9/11 and AQ that met with Hussein. They're all targets, all terrorists, everywhere, and those that harbor them. Bush said as much before congress just weeks after 9/11, IIRC.

But only on planet Claus can one derive "then Iraq planned 9/11" from those facts.

(Thanks for the back handed compliment, btw. )

Nothing backhanded about it. I applaud your efforts and thoroughness, and that you don't rely on pure chutzpah like our obstinate Dane does.

 

[Jocko]

I didn't make that claim. I am merely providing evidence for a concerted effort to deceive on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Ridge, et. al. Limiting the subject to one isolated quote is silly.

Then I'm afraid you'll have to take that up with Claus, as it's his idea of an OP statement. Now he's in another logical tailspin.

 

[Ziggurat]

So, basically, you admit they may (they did) have tried to deceive, but if people believed it, it was probably from some other source? Pretty convoluted defense, if you ask me.

No, Mark. I don't think they DID try to deceive. What I was trying to do was demonstrate how the logic of the argument that his rhetoric was deceptive would actually play out, and show that it still doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it leads to. Is taking a position for the sake of argument really too sophisticated for you? I'd like to think that it isn't, that you're just being argumentative, and that you aren't actually unable to understand why I might argue from this perspective.

The simplest explanation is that Americans by and large believed their leaders.

Simplest explanation for what, Mark? That's rather my point: you have failed to demonstrate that there ever WAS an increase in the belief that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. It may indeed be "simple" to assume a cause for an effect which you don't even know exists, but I don't think that's the kind of simplicity we should be aiming for. And if there was no increase, then you're assuming that people adopted a belief based on something Bush would say in the future, which puts your argument in perhaps an even worse position.

 

[CFLarsen]

But only on planet Claus can one derive "then Iraq planned 9/11" from those facts.

Where have I "derived" that?

 

[BPSCG]

Where have I "derived" that?

That's apparently, what everyone here is trying to figure out...

 

[Jocko]

That's apparently, what everyone here is trying to figure out...

Those of us that can still be bothered to, anyhow. There are enough dense people in the world who want to learn; no need to waste effort on those that don't.

Still, I do enjoy watching people in mental wheelchairs negotiate logical staircases. That probably makes me a bad person, but I've learned to live with it.

 

[Mark]

No, Mark. I don't think they DID try to deceive. What I was trying to do was demonstrate how the logic of the argument that his rhetoric was deceptive would actually play out, and show that it still doesn't lead to the conclusion you think it leads to. Is taking a position for the sake of argument really too sophisticated for you? I'd like to think that it isn't, that you're just being argumentative, and that you aren't actually unable to understand why I might argue from this perspective.



Simplest explanation for what, Mark? That's rather my point: you have failed to demonstrate that there ever WAS an increase in the belief that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. It may indeed be "simple" to assume a cause for an effect which you don't even know exists, but I don't think that's the kind of simplicity we should be aiming for. And if there was no increase, then you're assuming that people adopted a belief based on something Bush would say in the future, which puts your argument in perhaps an even worse position.

Really. What "truth" did the Adminstration present by putting Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence/paragraph dozens of times? It's a serious question.

 

[Mark]

Nothing backhanded about it. I applaud your efforts and thoroughness, and that you don't rely on pure chutzpah like our obstinate Dane does.

 

[Ziggurat]

Really. What "truth" did the Adminstration present by putting Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence/paragraph dozens of times? It's a serious question.

Here's much of the argument, which is also contained within the statements and speeches to which you refer (but don't seem to be interested in understanding if they don't show Bush to be a liar):

1) 9/11 changed our risk tolerance. That change in tolerance affects how we react to threats even if they aren't directly related to 9/11. In particular:
2) 9/11 demonstrated our vulnerability to terrorism. That same vulnerability to terrorism can be exploited by our enemies, and we have to expect that our enemies will try to exploit that vulnerability in the future. This applies to enemies regardless of any connection to the 9/11 attacks themselves, because everyone saw those vulnerabilities demonstrated. It applies especially to enemies who have a history of using terrorism.
3) 9/11 demonstrated that we can pay a very high price for waiting for our enemies to strike first, rather than removing them as a threat.
4) All the above change how we deal with our enemies, regardless of their connection to the 9/11 attack itself. Iraq was our enemy, and deserved new consideration under these changed conditions.

You may disagree with this line of reasoning. But you are not free to substitute an imagined one in its place.

 

[Mark]

Here's much of the argument, which is also contained within the statements and speeches to which you refer (but don't seem to be interested in understanding if they don't show Bush to be a liar):

1) 9/11 changed our risk tolerance. That change in tolerance affects how we react to threats even if they aren't directly related to 9/11. In particular:
2) 9/11 demonstrated our vulnerability to terrorism. That same vulnerability to terrorism can be exploited by our enemies, and we have to expect that our enemies will try to exploit that vulnerability in the future. This applies to enemies regardless of any connection to the 9/11 attacks themselves, because everyone saw those vulnerabilities demonstrated. It applies especially to enemies who have a history of using terrorism.
3) 9/11 demonstrated that we can pay a very high price for waiting for our enemies to strike first, rather than removing them as a threat.
4) All the above change how we deal with our enemies, regardless of their connection to the 9/11 attack itself. Iraq was our enemy, and deserved new consideration under these changed conditions.

You may disagree with this line of reasoning. But you are not free to substitute an imagined one in its place.

Your position that the Administration could mention Iraq and 9/11 in the same sentence/paragraph dozens of times without at least implying a link (if you read my quotes, they did much more than merely imply that link) is belied by the facts.

The notion that they did not link them is ridiculous in the extreme.

Edited to add:
Additional thought: you are making the claim that the vast majority of Americans linked Iraq and 9/11 in their minds not because of anything this Adminstration said or did, but because of...what? Just because they did?

Hmmm...

 

[davefoc]

Well, I've said this twice before in this thread, but I'll say it one more time anyway.

This dispute between Claus and others is the stupidest debate that I have seen on this forum.

The word "link" is ambiguous when it is used metaphorically. There is no right or wrong answer here.

Rumsfeld said that al qaida and hussein were linked. al qaida was linked to 9-11. Taking the meaning of "link" literally one reasonable conclusion about Rumsfeld's intended inference was that Hussein was linked to 9-11. This doesn't mean that Hussein was involved in directing the 9-11 attacks, nor did Claus claim it meant that. If a landlord rents to a drug dealer but doesn't take a direct role in the sale of drugs is it still reasonable to say that the landlord is linked to the sale of drugs? I think that would easily fall into the common useage of the word, "link".

But in defense of Rumsfeld, he seems to have steered clear of ever claiming that Hussein had directed the 9-11 attacks. What he did do was to exaggerate the strength of the evidence that there was any connection between al-qaida and Hussein. And this was a kind of lie by itself.

And by the way, do any of the Bushco defenders out there have any doubt that there was a concerted, coordinated effort by Bushco to exaggerate the strength of evidence for their WMD claims and their Al-Qaida connection claims?

 

[Grammatron]

Well, I've said this twice before in this thread, but I'll say it one more time anyway.

This dispute between Claus and others is the stupidest debate that I have seen on this forum.

The word "link" is ambiguous when it is used metaphorically. There is no right or wrong answer here.

From page #1 post #1

(Woman) 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?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

From the aforementioned NYT article: 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."...

"Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States. Some intelligence and law enforcement officials said today..."

Seven pages because CFL refuses to admit he made an error.

 

[a_unique_person]

But in defense of Rumsfeld, he seems to have steered clear of ever claiming that Hussein had directed the 9-11 attacks. What he did do was to exaggerate the strength of the evidence that there was any connection between al-qaida and Hussein. And this was a kind of lie by itself.

Andrew Wilkie, the ex-Australian intelligence officer, has written about this pattern of lying, for that is exactly what it was. Carefully written summaries by intelligence officers that clearly specify what is speculation and what is known fact, were routinely debased, with ambiguities removed. This was done in the USA, Australia and the UK. Wilkie resigned, an intelligence officer in the UK suicided.

 

[a_unique_person]

Richard Clark wrote in his book "against all enemies".

"Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and 'getting Iraq'....Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on Al Qaida. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Powell and his deputy, Armitage ... 'I thought I was missing something here', I vented. 'Having been attacked by al Qaida, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbour'... Powell shook his head. 'It's not over yet'. Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the Government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied."

 

[a_unique_person]

From Henry Waxman

[FONT=TimesNewRoman,Bold]

Statements by Secretary Rumsfeld.​

[/FONT]Between May 22, 2002, and November 2, 2003, Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq in 23 separate public appearances.
Some of the misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld include his statement on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”; his statement on January 29, 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s regime “recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa”; and his statement on July 13, 2003, that there “was never any debate” about whether Iraq had a nuclear
program.

​

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

​

 

[Ziggurat]

The notion that they did not link them is ridiculous in the extreme.

"Link" in what sense, Mark? Imply that Iraq had anything to do with the actual 9/11 attacks? No, they most definitely did not, and none of your quotes even suggests anything to that effect. Link them in terms of Iraq possibly posing a similar threat in the future? Sure, they did make that argument, and there's no lie or deception involved with that argument. If you can't tell the difference between those two kinds of "links" then the problem isn't Bush, it's you.

Edited to add:
Additional thought: you are making the claim that the vast majority of Americans linked Iraq and 9/11 in their minds not because of anything this Adminstration said or did, but because of...what? Just because they did?

Hmmm...

Well, how about simply because the public knew Saddam was one of our main enemies, whom we still had unfinished business with? You think people are actually incapable of deducing possibile suspects without being spoonfed an answer from CNN?

Do you have an alternate explanation for such a widespread belief on 9/13/2001? Perhaps some Bush quotes from those three days about Iraq? Or maybe you don't. Can youexplain the prevalance of that belief in any way that connects it to Bush? No, I don't think you can, which is why you didn't advance such a theory but instead just hoped I wouldn't be able to explain something that doesn't take much explaining.

 

[specious_reasons]

Richard Clark wrote in his book "against all enemies".

"Rumsfeld was talking about broadening the objectives of our response and 'getting Iraq'....Secretary Powell pushed back, urging a focus on Al Qaida. Relieved to have some support, I thanked Powell and his deputy, Armitage ... 'I thought I was missing something here', I vented. 'Having been attacked by al Qaida, for us now to go bombing Iraq in response would be like invading Mexico after the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbour'... Powell shook his head. 'It's not over yet'. Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the Government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied."

Note that Rumsfeld says Iraq just plain makes a better target. Even in this context, I'd expect that Rumsfeld understands that Iraq isn't to blame for 9/11, but that it provides a better opportunity for decisive action.

 

[Mark]

Note that Rumsfeld says Iraq just plain makes a better target. Even in this context, I'd expect that Rumsfeld understands that Iraq isn't to blame for 9/11, but that it provides a better opportunity for decisive action.

Nobody is arguing that he didn't know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

 

[Mark]

"Link" in what sense, Mark? Imply that Iraq had anything to do with the actual 9/11 attacks? No, they most definitely did not, and none of your quotes even suggests anything to that effect. Link them in terms of Iraq possibly posing a similar threat in the future? Sure, they did make that argument, and there's no lie or deception involved with that argument. If you can't tell the difference between those two kinds of "links" then the problem isn't Bush, it's you.



Well, how about simply because the public knew Saddam was one of our main enemies, whom we still had unfinished business with? You think people are actually incapable of deducing possibile suspects without being spoonfed an answer from CNN?

Do you have an alternate explanation for such a widespread belief on 9/13/2001? Perhaps some Bush quotes from those three days about Iraq? Or maybe you don't. Can youexplain the prevalance of that belief in any way that connects it to Bush? No, I don't think you can, which is why you didn't advance such a theory but instead just hoped I wouldn't be able to explain something that doesn't take much explaining.

Americans did not overwhelmingly blame Iraq for 9/11 on Sept. 13. Hello...we went to war in Afghanistan!!!!!! They did later blame Iraq because Bush linked Iraq and 9/11 in speech after speech after speech!