Rumsfeld on the Ropes

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by 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..

Brilliant first post. Welcome aboard.

But be prepared to get jumped on as being "anti-American" for that observation. I have said the same thing and was a very lonely voice in the wilderness early on when I pointed that out. The neo-cons are closet fascists and have been pulling every play they can from the Nazi playbook to control the nation. But hey, the people in America "voted", so what you are seeing is just "democracy in action" (Hitler was elected too).

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by 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 you have a friend here. Nazi quotes and all. How can anyone now deny that Bush is Hitler's offspring now?

Maybe you two can share conspiracy stories!

I here "dem Joooos wuz warned prior to 9/11 to stay home" is make it's rounds again.

[White Doors]

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.

Good post!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Good post!

And already beat into submission by reality.

[metallicat]

What do posting Nazi quotes have to do with anything really? Besides the fact that people obviously think the Bush administration lied and is using lies in order to achieve the same result of Nazi Germany. Is there any other reason than that? Comparing anyone to Hitler, or any government to the Nazi's is a pretty harsh comparison, and I don't think it's fair in any case.

Maybe I am just naive, but I don't think Bush and co. concocted evidence to support this war. I think they honestly believed what they presented, just as every major politician regardless of party status did in the US.

Obviously now, I wish the war had happened differently. I wish Bush had just come out and said that the war was about removing an evil dictator from power because he was an overal threat to world stability. It seems now that the WMD argument backfired unfortunately. I still believe they are somewhere. Some other country most likely. I just think it's unfortunate that the people that are now against the war because it has gone bad can sit back and gloat and not take any blame, despite the fact that I believe the Democrats would have gone to war as well.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Maybe you two can share conspiracy stories!

This always cracks me up. Its always a conspiracy theory for the neo-cons, when you catch them in a bold faced lie. They run around waiving their hands in the air screaming at the top of their lungs, "conspiracy theory!", hoping to draw attention away from the fact that they have indeed fouled the arena. Let's take a closer look at what would constitute a conspiracy theory, shall we?

Wiki says that "A conspiracy theory attempts to explain the cause of an event as a secret, and often deceptive, plot by a covert alliance rather than as an overt activity or as natural occurrence." Pretty fair definition. So if we are to assume that there is a conspiracy theory in place in regards to the Iraq war and governmental misbehavior there would have to be a well laid out plan, alterior motives, and a secret pact to make this plan come to fruition.

Sadly, it appears that HOZ is correct, there is no conspiracy theory surrounding this subject matter, there is only a conspiracy fact! All the blocks we put into place well in advance by the PNAC in the mid to late 90's. They stated their ambitions. They stated how they were going to assume control of the world's economies for the benefit of America. They said in no certain terms how they would do so using political, economic and military might. The neo-cons were STUPID enough to publish their blue print and then acted on it to create their twisted utopia. No conspiracy theory is possible when the ######s publish well in advance what they are going to do. The only thing possible at that point is the conspiracy itself. The neo-cons conspired to get assume control of the bodies that they thought would lead to their global domination and did so somewhat effectively. They won the White House through a split court ruling. They assumed control over the military to the dismay of the professional soldiers. They assumed control over the money pool that the third world can access with Wolfowitz's appointment to the head of the World Bank. The neo-cons conspired to assume control and executed their plan. That is indeed a conspiracy and it is all fact, supported by their own twisted words.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

[White Doors]

Lanny,

Tell us that missle/pentagon story again. that was fun!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Maybe I am just naive, but I don't think Bush and co. concocted evidence to support this war. I think they honestly believed what they presented, just as every major politician regardless of party status did in the US.

You're naive. Read the following books and tell me that the evidence was not cooked.

America's Secret War (George Friedman)
Cobra II (Gordon and Trainor)
Assassin's Gate (George Packer)

and most importantly...

War on Iraq: What Team Bush doesn't want you to know (William Pitt and Scott Ritter)

The last title was co-written by the same Scott Ritter who was the US weapons inspector who the Bush administration completely ignored. This is the same Scott Ritter that spent seven years in Iraq hunting down the WMDs and was able to confirm, along with the UN weapons inspectors, that the systems and weapons themselves had been destroyed as per the UN resolutions. There is zero doubt now that the evidence was cooked. The UN said so, the American inspectors said so, the military has been saying so, and the CIA is now coming clean. The only question left now is whether the Democraps (sic) can win control of the house in the 2006 mid terms and impeach Bush and his cronies.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Lanny,

Tell us that missle/pentagon story again. that was fun!

And I'm still waiting for you to post proof of anything. It would be nice if you would back up anything you say, which of course you do not. I would expect nothing less of someone of your ilk.

[White Doors]

SO you think you proved that a missle and not a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11? You make a (ridiculous) claim, then the burden of proof is on you sir - not anyone else.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

SO you think you proved that a missle and not a plane hit the pentagon on 9/11? You make a (ridiculous) claim, then the burden of proof is on you sir - not anyone else.

Is that the best you got? I certainly hope you are going to back yourself up with more than burden of proof? Jesus man, the burden of proof in this thread (you remember, the one where you patted Dis on the back for the brilliant and well thought out post, the same one that had already been completly debunked/refuted) was hammered home.

As to the Pentagon, and not trying to hijack this thread, the 9/11 Commission Report could not conclusively prove one way or the other what hit the Pentagon. In fact they completely ignore the evidence and bury the testimony of many witnesses to try and tidy up that end of their "investigation" (which it was not). There are more gaps in the 9/11 Commission Report than there is in an Oiler fan's family tree. That is the whole premise for the disbelief of the "plane" story. There is just as much evidence to say that it was not the plane in question as there is that it was. In fact, there is more against the notion of the 757, which is why the theory continues to have the legs it does. The government has had five years to release the video footage they siezed from surrounding buildings that could conclusively solve, once and for all, what hit the Pentagon, but they refuse to do so. Burden of proof you say? That burden still lay with the government.

Now, back to Mr. Rumsfeld please...

[metallicat]

I'll check those books out, I was planning on getting something new to read soon. And I like fiction novels, so we'll see how it goes.

But speaking quickly about the Pentagon, on a law enforcement message board, I read statements from a United States cop who was on scene at the Pentagon minutes after the attack happened...his "testimony" on the message board is enough for me to believe it indeed was a plane that hit the Pentagon. That's probably not enough for many, but it is for me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

And sought medical treatment in Baghdad, it's well known. Do I think this was a tie to bin Laden for Hussein? Nope. What it does show is that Hussein was uninterested in policing Al-Qaeda within his boarders. But that's not really important either, because we all know that Hussein monetarily supported suicide bombings in Israel. That made Iraq a terrorist state. But, to this conversation we have to figure out if the administration lied. I don't see where they did. I don't remember Powell telling the UN that Saddam and bin Laden were best friends forever and plotting to take down the US and Israel in an act of brotherhood. Do you have quotes from officials in which they clearly state that there IS a connection?

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

Again, you ignore the evidence. After the Gulf War the UN documented Hussein's entire arsenal and set about destroying it. They were expelled before that work was complete. What happened to the remaining WMD's (what a stupid term) that were marked for disposal? They didn't NEED to manufacture any evidence. The evidence was already there, and unaccounted for. They may have wanted the war and they may have rushed. But to sit there and say that there were never any WMD's is crazy talk!

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

Funny you would put it that way after our conversation the other day, but hey I guess that's your style. Nothing wrong with anything you said in that. Might all be true, except the oil part doesn't make sense. But that doesn't point to lying by the administration which is what this thread and my reply was about.

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

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.

Well, if they lied you haven't proven it in this thead. As I said above, I don't think they needed to lie. You will again ignore that part of my response won't you.

My opinions....Rumsfeld is incompetent. Bush is a do nothing President. Doesn't mean they lied about this.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Scott Ritter was on Hussein's payroll prior to the invasion. Why didn't you mention that part Lanny?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Scott Ritter was on Hussein's payroll prior to the invasion. Why didn't you mention that part Lanny?

Where did you come up with that?

[FlamesAddiction]

I don't think the question was ever; "Is Zarqawi in Iraq?". Zarqawi wasn't actually a prominent figure in Iraq until after the invasion. The question was; "What is Saddam Hussein's reationship with Al Qaeda".

Rumsfeld and Bush insinuated on several occasions that Iraq's government was somehow supporting al Qaeda terrorists that might attack the U.S. That was never proven, and in fact it was pretty much disproved. The presence of Zarqawi is really not important as there are people like him all over the world. You throw a dart at a map of Saudi Arabia (or another so-called ally) and we would probably find another guy just like Zarqawi.

On WMD, Iraq was in a precorious position. It was a mistake for Saddam Hussein to get rid of his weapons without documenting everything. But we should also try and understand why he did it, and why he always wanted a question mark hanging over him. Iran was quickly become a larger power in the region, and if Iran thought that Iraq was weak, it is very possible they would have invaded Iraq. The next best thing to having WMD is giving the impression that you "might" have them. I believe that was Hussein's intention, but Bush didn't seem to think diplomatically enough to realize that. It's my opinion that inpections were finally starting to work, but it seems like Bush just fast-tracked the war at that point. That is when all the Al Qaeda-Hussein connections and innuendo started being thrown around, almost as if to create a smoke screen.

On the failed UN resolutions, the UN also wanted a war avoided. It's hard to pull the UN card when making a case for war, when the UN was quite adament about having no invasion of Iraq.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the U.S. has every right to take whatever actions it needs to, to make sure it is protected. I just never believed Iraq was the threat it was made out to be- and I have doubts that Bush or Rumsfeld honestly thought so either. How could they with barely any evidence of any thing?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Where did you come up with that?

It was widely reported in the weeks leading up to the war.

He directed a documentary criticizing the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

It was widely reported in the weeks leading up to the war.

He directed a documentary criticizing the UN sanctions imposed on Iraq.

And that equates to him being on Saddam's payroll?

I remember reading that Hussein tried to bribe he and his family with gold and such, but he didn't bite. I don't blame him for directing a movie about UN sanctions. Sanctions can be oppressive to the people more than they can be to the dictator. Look no further than the 40 year blockade of Cuba as an example.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Well, if they lied you haven't proven it in this thead. As I said above, I don't think they needed to lie. You will again ignore that part of my response won't you.

Is it a lie when someone says "I know this to be a fact" but they don't know it to be a fact?

I think Rumsfeld has been lying because the things he stated that were unequivocally fact were not fact and he knew it all along that questions remained.

He and George weren't saying "well maybe Iraq has a large stockpile of WMDs", the were saying "Iraq has a large stockpile of WMDs". They weren't saying "we have a hunch Saddam is connected to Osama and his friends" they were saying "he is connected to Osama and his friends, and September 11th taught us...".

Both those guys knew questions remained and none of this stuff absolute but they both said it was absolute. In other words, they were, you know, not telling the truth.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

And that equates to him being on Saddam's payroll?

I remember reading that Hussein tried to bribe he and his family with gold and such, but he didn't bite. I don't blame him for directing a movie about UN sanctions. Sanctions can be oppressive to the people more than they can be to the dictator. Look no further than the 40 year blockade of Cuba as an example.

Saddam funded the production. That equates him to being on the payroll and creates, at the least, a conflict of interest when it comes to his expert testimony.

Obviously, I agree on the sanctions. They accomplished nothing but hurting the Iraqi people and corrupting UN officials who saw an opportunity to make a buck. The worst part about the sanctions is that they are often labelled as US sanctions and the US is often directly blamed for all the death and despair that resulted from the sanctions. Actually, that's not the worst part. The death and despair they created is by far the worst part.

Of course, all of that is Saddam Hussein's fault in my book.