Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[CFLarsen]

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.

(cough)

Rumsfeld: There's one other thing I forgot to do, and that is to go to New York Times editorial comment, which said something about me using the word "bulletproof." And it's true, I did. What happened was, as I recall, I think I was here on probably the 26th of September, I think I was told, and in a press briefing I was asked about the linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. And I took a piece of paper -- this one, as fate would have it -- which I had gotten from the Central Intelligence Agency -- and asked them -- which I'd asked them for -- and I believe I said that, that a number of us had said, "Give us the definitive word." And so I read off of it and said it was from the intelligence agency, I believe.
United States Dept. of Defense

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.

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?

Well, he wasn't right.

And to answer your question: Of course not.

In the face of Rumsfeld's own admission, do you admit that you were wrong? Time to show that you are a skeptic.

 

[clk]

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.

A link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not the same as a link between Iraq and 9/11
Jesus Christ, why is that so hard for you to understand? The woman's claim was flat-out wrong. It's that simple.

 

[CFLarsen]

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:

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

No, no, no. "Administration officials". Not Rumsfeld.

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.

I'm not playing semantical games. I refer you to post #221.

Are you going to ignore the evidence?

 

[CFLarsen]

A link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not the same as a link between Iraq and 9/11
Jesus Christ, why is that so hard for you to understand? The woman's claim was flat-out wrong. It's that simple.

Rumsfeld has admitted to claiming bulletproof evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is a fact.

Is Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration, for that matter) blaming Al Qaeda for 9/11? Yes or no.

 

[clk]

No, no, no. "Administration officials". Not Rumsfeld.

Guess what? Rumsfeld is an administration official.

I'm not playing semantical games. I refer you to post #221.

Are you going to ignore the evidence?

When the woman 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?

She was wrong. Do you agree? If not, then show exactly where in the article that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11. And don't come back with his quote linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, because it's not the same thing.

When Rumsfeld said:

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.

He was right. Do you agree?

 

[clk]

Rumsfeld has admitted to claiming bulletproof evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is a fact.

OK, then show us the quote where he links Iraq and 9/11. Why have you failed to do this for the last 5 pages?

Is Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration, for that matter) blaming Al Qaeda for 9/11? Yes or no.

Yeah, but so what? This is completely irrelevant.

 

[HarryKeogh]

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.

Who here is denying he said that? I myself said he said that in an earlier post in this thread.

OK, honestly Claus...are you playing around? Are you just doing this for kicks to see how many people you could annoy?

We're denying he said a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11 which was the point of the second part of the opening post.

Where did he say there was a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11?

 

[clk]

Who here is denying he said that?

Nobody is denying it, and Claus knows damn well that he's wrong. He just doesn't have the character to admit it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Guess what? Rumsfeld is an administration official.

Guess what? He is not the one being quoted!

When the woman said:

She was wrong. Do you agree? If not, then show exactly where in the article that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11. And don't come back with his quote linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, because it's not the same thing.

When Rumsfeld said:

He was right. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. The evidence is there. Face it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Where did he say there was a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11?

You do realize that you are saying that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11?

 

[Kopji]

Panel Debates Whether Saddam Has the Weapons
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3391

...Robert Scheer argued that the Bush administration's ground for the proposed invasion of Iraq have continually shifted. "We had September 11, we went after bin Laden. After September 11 Iraq becomes a big issue. There are two reasons that could have been valid: one was if Iraq was connected to these attacks. Rumsfield said there was bullet-proof evidence of such a connection. It has never been presented. Then there is the claim that there were weapons of mass destruction. They have been unable to find any. The UN inspectors' report says they have found no evidence of mobile or underground facilities. The report from the atomic energy group said that the documents trying to prove that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons were faked. So no evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction has been submitted. They can't make the case on terror, can't make the case on weapons of mass destruction. That leaves regime change. If that is what they wanted to do from the beginning, that is what they should have said."...

..."We are being jacked around. This is very dangerous for a democratic society. Democracy is a system in which the president talks to god but thinks he can lie to the American people."

This discussion was posted March 3, 2003, before the invasion on March 20. All these questions were asked BEFORE the war and we went in anyway, eyes open. The discussion is almost prophetic.

Rumsfeld did publicly use the phrase "bulletproof evidence" and I remember it at least once. But he goes on later to soften it, knowing that nobody is going to read past paragraph one. "Most of us are all too happily led around by the nose. The war is as much the people's fault as elected leaders like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blair.

We cannot remove our responsibility by saying we were lied to. We lapped it up and still do.

Rumsfeld Says U.S. Has 'Bulletproof' Evidence of Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html

A little more recent news. "JACKED AROUND" - Great phrase.

biological laboratories

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

...The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's see if evidence will make people change their minds.

 

[davefoc]

If a gang was running a drug ring in a town out of a rented house, would it be reasonable to say that there was a link between the landlord and the gang if the landlord knew the nature of the gang but the landlord neither controlled the gang nor knew of the specifics of their day to day operation?

Based on my understanding of the use of the word "link" this would a perfectly reasonable representation of the situation.

 

[clk]

Guess what? He is not the one being quoted!



No, I don't agree. The evidence is there. Face it.

At this point, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dishonest. Oh well, it's certainly not the first time. All you have to do is provide a quote from Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11. You have failed to do so over the last five pages. It has been very, very clearly proven that the woman's claim was wrong, and yet you continue to lie and claim otherwise. Why?

 

[CFLarsen]

At this point, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dishonest. Oh well, it's certainly not the first time. All you have to do is provide a quote from Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11. You have failed to do so over the last five pages. It has been very, very clearly proven that the woman's claim was wrong, and yet you continue to lie and claim otherwise. Why?

Do you admit that it wasn't Rumsfeld being quoted?

Have you read post #231?

 

[clk]

Do you admit that it wasn't Rumsfeld being quoted?

No. Administration officials speak for the entire administration, including Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld had claimed a link to 9/11, then why didn't the NY Times mention it at all? It doesn't add up.

Have you read post #231?

Yeah, and the author of that page is likely making the same mistake as you, equating a link to Al Qaeda as a link to 9/11. If Rumsfeld said there was a link to 9/11, then where is the quote? Why isn't it displayed prominently on the web pages of hundreds of liberal sites? Because he never said it. He said exactly the opposite.
http://www.chinadaily.net/en/doc/2003-09/17/content_264869.htm

Defense Secretary Donald H. 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.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

"What we have said," she added, "is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."

Now, where is the quote in which Rumsfeld directly links Saddam to 9/11?

 

[CFLarsen]

No. Administration officials speak for the entire administration, including Rumsfeld.

I didn't ask if administration officials speak for the entire administration. I asked if it was Rumsfeld being quoted.

Was it Rumsfeld? Or was it someone else?

If Rumsfeld had claimed a link to 9/11, then why didn't the NY Times mention it at all? It doesn't add up.

It doesn't matter if it adds up. We are not dealing with people who seek rationality. The only thing that matter is: Did Rumsfeld say it? Yes, he did.

Yeah, and the author of that page is likely making the same mistake as you, equating a link to Al Qaeda as a link to 9/11. If Rumsfeld said there was a link to 9/11, then where is the quote? Why isn't it displayed prominently on the web pages of hundreds of liberal sites? Because he never said it. He said exactly the opposite.
http://www.chinadaily.net/en/doc/2003-09/17/content_264869.htm

Now, where is the quote in which Rumsfeld directly links Saddam to 9/11?

Look, if you want to claim that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11, fine with me. But I'm following you into RummyWorld.

He said it. Deal with it.

 

[clk]

Claus,
Why do you think that when a Google search is performed on the words "Rumsfeld Saddam 9/11", the only links and quotes that come up are of him saying that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11? Is it because he never said there was a link, and that the only people who think otherwise are the ones too stupid to understand that Saddam-AQ is different from Saddam-9/11?
Or do you think it is some massive conspiracy between Bush, Google, and the rest of the internet to suppress a quote by him?

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."

=====================================

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.

"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."

 

[clk]

Look, if you want to claim that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11, fine with me.

Strawman. Where did I claim this?

He said it.

Where is the quote?

All you have to do is provide a single quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11, and I will immediately concede my point. Why are you unable to perform the most simple of tasks?

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,
Why do you think that when a Google search is performed on the words "Rumsfeld Saddam 9/11", the only links and quotes that come up are of him saying that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11? Is it because he never said there was a link, and that the only people who think otherwise are the ones too stupid to understand that Saddam-AQ is different from Saddam-9/11? Or do you think it is some massive conspiracy between Bush, Google, and the rest of the internet to suppress a quote by him?

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

Strawman. Where did I claim this?

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?

All you have to do is provide a single quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11, and I will immediately concede my point. Why are you unable to perform the most simple of tasks?

Look, you are fighting a lost battle here. The Bush administration - which Rumsfeld is a vital part of - made Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda - responsible for 9/11 - a vital part of the reasoning behind the attack on Iraq.

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