Rumsfeld on the Ropes

[FlamesAddiction]

I always like to see politicians get owned when asked tough questions!

If you haven't seen this video, it's good for a laugh:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHxahhqmyeg

[Dynamic]

I shorted milk through my nose when just looking at his facial expressions. Once again he realizes thats its IMPOSSIBLE to reasonably explain what has happened in the last 5 or so years,

[RougeUnderoos]

The funny thing about ol' Rummy he still seems surprised and incredulous when people ask him about this stuff.

And who are those dummies in the crowd always willing to shush the people who do question him on something? I mean come on you suckers, we all know he said "there are ties" and "there are WMD" but if someone brings it up they get booed. It's like they are saying "aw come on, don't ask about that, he's an old guy" and then they laugh when he says some dumb quip.

The weird thing is that they still have 32% approval rating. Makes you wonder what it takes for some people to take off the old Republican glasses and see what's going on.

[theJuice]

Haha, thanks, that was worth a laugh.

[Vulcan]

I like it that the Americans are finally calling out the Bush administration on their lies. I was hoping Kerry would have done this in the debates, but he either didn't have the guts or his handlers convinced him that he'd lose more votes than he would gain.

[HOZ]

Geezus murphy. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

If he(Rumsfeld) didn't want to answer the question he could have let the security take the guy away. But instead told them to let him stay. Wow....really got to him there!

And questions coming from an ex-CIA guy that believes in various Jewish-world domination conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061601570.html

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

....
"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."
Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."
At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Geezus murphy. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

If he(Rumsfeld) didn't want to answer the question he could have let the security take the guy away. But instead told them to let him stay. Wow....really got to him there!

And questions coming from an ex-CIA guy that believes in various Jewish-world domination conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061601570.html

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

....
"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."
Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."
At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

Nice bunch of attempted arm waiving from the local neo-con ######. How about putting the quotes into context shall we?

You left out a very important part, framing the McGovern quote.

"The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."

There was the motivations of the war, plain and simple. No WMDs. No link to Al Qaeda. No freeing the oppressed or bringing democracy. It was all about protecting the interests of the neo-cons (who happen to be very pro-Israel, and they are not afraid to promote that themselves). It certainly was not for the good of the American people, who have seen their country divided, their deficit swell to almost unmanagable levels, see fuel prices rise to prices that make it difficult for some to travel to work, etc.

Also, you missed a very important part of the article... TWICE! Early on the writer stated "The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war." he later finished up with the following summation.

"The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping system in the Nixon White House.""

But hey, the arm waiving was really effective, as usual.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Geezus murphy. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

If he(Rumsfeld) didn't want to answer the question he could have let the security take the guy away. But instead told them to let him stay. Wow....really got to him there!

Yeah, you're right. Rumsfeld came out of that looking great. I'm sure the Republican Party will put that exchange right on their website.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Geezus murphy. You guys are really scraping the bottom of the barrel now.

If he(Rumsfeld) didn't want to answer the question he could have let the security take the guy away. But instead told them to let him stay. Wow....really got to him there!

And questions coming from an ex-CIA guy that believes in various Jewish-world domination conspiracies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...061601570.html

Friday, June 17, 2005; Page A06

In the Capitol basement yesterday, long-suffering House Democrats took a trip to the land of make-believe.

....
"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."
Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."
At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

"He could of let the security take the guy away". Sure he could of, that's what generally happens in a dictatorship, not a democracy. Rummy is a liar, no matter how you try to disguise the question.

I'm pretty respectful of most people on this board, but you are are frikken joke.

[Displaced Flames fan]

I suppose I'm a fricken joke for saying this...and a sheep...and all the other derogatory monikers the self righteous, elitist anti-Bush people who post here would like to hurl at me but lets look at a couple of irrefutable facts here....

1. Al Zarqawi was in Iraq.

2. Because Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors on several occasions and did not dispose of his documented stockpile of WMD's in the manner provided for by various UN resolutions it is not unreasonable to assume that he still had WMD's in Iraq at the time. Actually, it would've been irresponsible to think otherwise.

3. It took 17 UN security council resolutions and the subsequent disregard/violation of each of them for the US government to attempt the use of force in Iraq.

I'm not happy with the way this thing has played out at all. The planning for post-invasion operations and transition to a new Iraqi rule has been horrnedous. However, to say that the administration LIED about WMD's in Iraq or Saddam's threat level or Al-Qaeda's presence there is just flat out wrong.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I suppose I'm a fricken joke for saying this...and a sheep...and all the other derogatory monikers the self righteous, elitist anti-Bush people who post here would like to hurl at me but lets look at a couple of irrefutable facts here....

1. Al Zarqawi was in Iraq.

2. Because Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors on several occasions and did not dispose of his documented stockpile of WMD's in the manner provided for by various UN resolutions it is not unreasonable to assume that he still had WMD's in Iraq at the time. Actually, it would've been irresponsible to think otherwise.

3. It took 17 UN security council resolutions and the subsequent disregard/violation of each of them for the US government to attempt the use of force in Iraq.

I'm not happy with the way this thing has played out at all. The planning for post-invasion operations and transition to a new Iraqi rule has been horrnedous. However, to say that the administration LIED about WMD's in Iraq or Saddam's threat level or Al-Qaeda's presence there is just flat out wrong.

I wasn't directed my anger at you, only Hoz.

The only out I see for saying the Bush administration wasn't lying is that they are too dumb to tie their own shoelaces.

The UN said there were no WMD. This CIA agent said there were no WMD. The biggest fool who let on there were WMD, was Saddam. The only reason I can fathom for this is it was a macho thing and he needed to be feared by his enemies.

[Displaced Flames fan]

The UN said there were no WMD? How the hell would they know? They didn't oversee the destruction of the entire arsenal as outlined by their own resolution(s). They had no idea. This baffles me to no end. Anti-Bushers will consistantly ignore the fact that there were documented WMD's that were unaccounted for at the time. Still are.

I wouldn't argue that the administration may have been hasty and trying to rush things but I'm not going to roll over on the lying bit. There's too much logic to say they didn't.

I shouldn't have used your shot at Hoz in my opening, I apologize. It's just I've seen a lot of generalizations regarding the intelligence of all Bush supporters (which I don't necessarily count myself among anymore) from certain posters on this site the last couple of days.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

They didn't oversee the destruction of the entire arsenal as outlined by their own resolution(s). They had no idea. This baffles me to no end.

The UN would be kind of hard-pressed to oversee the destruction of something they couldn't find and that apparently didn't exist, wouldn't you say?

Seems to me that a fair number of military people, intelligence types, ex-Bush staffers and a growing majority of the American people are becoming "elitist anti-Bush people" as well. When the majority becomes the elite, are they really elite any more?

[Kjesse]

What an exchange, I saw that on CNN earlier today.

Rumsfield's first redeeming quality there is he lets the heckler debate him for a bit. Rumsfield at least partially promoted the war to promote "American" values and ideology --- ie. Sadam = dictator, no free speech, etc. So at least he's not a total hypocrit.

How this plays out will be critical. If Rumsfield falls, Bush won't have a shield to hide to behind anymore. Which happens to be Rumsfield's second redeeming quality --- he's the front line man taking the blame. Bush should be so bold and stand beside him during that exchange.

Its easy to hate the Republicans right now.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Nice bunch of attempted arm waiving from the local neo-con ######. How about putting the quotes into context shall we?

You left out a very important part, framing the McGovern quote.

"The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon."

There was the motivations of the war, plain and simple. No WMDs. No link to Al Qaeda. No freeing the oppressed or bringing democracy. It was all about protecting the interests of the neo-cons (who happen to be very pro-Israel, and they are not afraid to promote that themselves). It certainly was not for the good of the American people, who have seen their country divided, their deficit swell to almost unmanagable levels, see fuel prices rise to prices that make it difficult for some to travel to work, etc.

Also, you missed a very important part of the article... TWICE! Early on the writer stated "The session was a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war." he later finished up with the following summation.

"The glitches and the antiwar theatrics proved something of a distraction from the message the organizers aimed to deliver: that for the Bush White House, as lawyer John C. Bonifaz put it, the British memo is "the equivalent to the revelation that there was a taping system in the Nixon White House.""

But hey, the arm waiving was really effective, as usual.

You love your conspiracies don't you?

USA doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon? So since Sharon is in a coma......who is in charge now?

Ya the guy is a great source for whether or not Rumfeld lied.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

This CIA agent said there were no WMD. .

Ummmm....what did the AGENCY say? This agent is an anti-semitic dingbat. A real good source for truth!

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

The UN said there were no WMD? How the hell would they know? They didn't oversee the destruction of the entire arsenal as outlined by their own resolution(s). They had no idea. This baffles me to no end. Anti-Bushers will consistantly ignore the fact that there were documented WMD's that were unaccounted for at the time. Still are.

I wouldn't argue that the administration may have been hasty and trying to rush things but I'm not going to roll over on the lying bit. There's too much logic to say they didn't.

I shouldn't have used your shot at Hoz in my opening, I apologize. It's just I've seen a lot of generalizations regarding the intelligence of all Bush supporters (which I don't necessarily count myself among anymore) from certain posters on this site the last couple of days.

Well as the resident labelled "neo-con" do to my lack of opposition to this war I share your bafflement. There are good reasons to be opposed, minus Afghanistan where there is NO good reason, to the conflict as the Americans have been keystone cops-like and any improvements that have happened usually inspite of their good intensions.

The WMD/lying part is truly idiotic. Somehow being wrong has equated to lying. IF Bush and his warmongering-unilateralist-christian-neocon brain trusts went out of their way to LIE.....wouldn't thay have planted the evidence? It would have been soooooooo easy. I don't see too many answers for this.

But then these are people that trumpet an anti-semitic dingbat heckler.

[nuckles]

Hey you think that's bad , watch this.

WMD's ??? The Last time I checked the US was one of the leading Nuclear Proliferators in the world , kinda scarey that this admin seems to be using old Nazi Propaganda tactics to further it's cause for war.

Hey let's look at some examples:

On WMD's and 9/11

“The broad mass of the nation ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, in his 1925 book Mein Kampf

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” — Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels

“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Göring during the Nuremberg Trials

Maybe rummy is using some 1984 tatics here:

Doublethink
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary."

Wow..

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I suppose I'm a fricken joke for saying this...and a sheep...and all the other derogatory monikers the self righteous, elitist anti-Bush people who post here would like to hurl at me but lets look at a couple of irrefutable facts here....

1. Al Zarqawi was in Iraq.

Al Zarqawi was in a part of Iraq that was NOT under Hussein's control. Al Zarqawi was in the part of Iraq that was under protection of the American no-fly zone. Hussein had no control over what took place in this region. Saying that Al Zarqawi was in Iraq proved there was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is like saying that because the 19 hijackers were living and training in the Arizona that John McCain was complicent to 9/11.

2. Because Hussein kicked out weapons inspectors on several occasions and did not dispose of his documented stockpile of WMD's in the manner provided for by various UN resolutions it is not unreasonable to assume that he still had WMD's in Iraq at the time. Actually, it would've been irresponsible to think otherwise.

It's extremely irresponsible to invade a country until you are 100 percent certain of the facts. The UN Weapons Inspectors all said there was no evidence of anything. The Americans working on the UN Weapons Inspections said the same things, but they were all ignored in favor of the shaky testimony of a ex-national, who turned out to be a planted Iranian spy. The Bush administration wanted this war and manufactured their way into it. There is no hiding that fact.

3. It took 17 UN security council resolutions and the subsequent disregard/violation of each of them for the US government to attempt the use of force in Iraq.

And use force without the blessing of the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations. No one saw the Iraqis as a risk. The American military leaders did not see Iraq as a risk. The Bush administration and the neo-cons were the only ones that saw anything in Iraq that they liked, and those things were oil, a military foothold, and a chance to extend their power in the region. The invasion had ZERO to do with enforcing UN resolutions and suggesting as much is more of an insult to your intelligence than it is to ours.

I'm not happy with the way this thing has played out at all. The planning for post-invasion operations and transition to a new Iraqi rule has been horrnedous. However, to say that the administration LIED about WMD's in Iraq or Saddam's threat level or Al-Qaeda's presence there is just flat out wrong.

Sorry Dis, the administration lied out their ass. There is no denying that anymore. NONE. Its done. Its been proven in spades. The only ones not believing that anymore are those sheep that you do not want to be lumped in with. The intelligence community is coming clean and admitting it now. The military is spilling their guts. What the hell else do you want? Cheney himself to come out from behind the curtian and tell you that George W. really is the stuttering idiot he appears to be and that the administration just executed the plans they have been sitting on since the mid 90's? The evidence is all out there for anyone to see, and its not one of those wild "conspiracy theories" the right wingers like to claim everyone is "cooking up". The only thing "cooked up" was the intelligence to support the actions of a bunch of right wing wackos who played a little too much Risk while they were in college.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

You love your conspiracies don't you?

USA doing the bidding of Ariel Sharon? So since Sharon is in a coma......who is in charge now?

Ya the guy is a great source for whether or not Rumfeld lied.

And where was Sharon when this was playing out, jackass? You are without a doubt the stupidest person I have ever seen.