Rumsfeld on the Ropes

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

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.

I don't know if that is a lie, but I would give you that it's not honest.

On the first issue, WMD's, again....Iraq DID have a large stockpile of WMD's slated for UN destruction. The inspectors in charge of this activity were expelled from the country and when they returned whatever was left was nowhere to be found. So that is not a lie in my book.

On the second issue, Al Qaeda, I don't know that I've ever seen a legitimate quote of anyone in the administration that flat out suggests that there was a direct connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I've said from the beginning that there was not one. Not that I doubt there was one, but that there was definitely NOT one. It is well documented that bin Laden has great disdain for Hussein's actions as the leader of Muslims in Iraq. There was no reason for the connection and in fact, its more reasonable to think that at some point Al Qaeda may have tried to get Hussein themseleves. So if the administration did make those claims directly then I would agree they were lying. I've yet to see it. And, no, the Prague meeting thing doesn't count since it did not come from US intelligence and was in fact discounted by US intelligence.

Your last paragraph is more than a little vague. Do I need to break out the infamous Rumsfeld quote about the unknowns we don't yet know?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

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.

You're right Dis, they didn't need to lie to get into Iraq, they were going come hell or high water. But did they lie anyways? Hell yeah. You want more proof? Okie dokie.

White House knew there were WMD's

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-...344306427.html

Even FoxNews is saying the White House lied to get into Iraq now

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,192069,00.html

The smoking gun wasn't so smoking...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041101888.html

...but that didn't stop the White House from saying it was!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041201789.html

A scathing summation

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11069

Calling Cheney out

http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=8837

The tubes were down the tubes

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0330nj1.htm

One from one of HOZ's favorite sites (the right even buries the Bushies)

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/200603...r-in-iraq.html

Bush admin hand picked the intelligence

http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=8535

The lies keep rolling

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111305Z.shtml

The Wite House decided what congress got to see

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111101832.html

Downing Street memo sends the Bushies down for the count

http://downingstreetmemo.com/

Enough?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

I don't know if that is a lie, but I would give you that it's not honest.

On the first issue, WMD's, again....Iraq DID have a large stockpile of WMD's slated for UN destruction. The inspectors in charge of this activity were expelled from the country and when they returned whatever was left was nowhere to be found. So that is not a lie in my book.

Here's a reasonable timeline of events.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_disarmament_crisis

On the second issue, Al Qaeda, I don't know that I've ever seen a legitimate quote of anyone in the administration that flat out suggests that there was a direct connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government. I've said from the beginning that there was not one. Not that I doubt there was one, but that there was definitely NOT one. It is well documented that bin Laden has great disdain for Hussein's actions as the leader of Muslims in Iraq. There was no reason for the connection and in fact, its more reasonable to think that at some point Al Qaeda may have tried to get Hussein themseleves. So if the administration did make those claims directly then I would agree they were lying. I've yet to see it. And, no, the Prague meeting thing doesn't count since it did not come from US intelligence and was in fact discounted by US intelligence.

Cheney said it and is directly quoted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

[Ayrahb]

"The point is this: we know Iraq possesses biological weapons, and chemical weapons, and is expanding and improving their capabilities to produce them."

(Excerpt from Rumsfeld's statement before the House Armed Services Committee, Sept. 18, 2002, http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...8rumsfeld.html )

I am sure there is more from the Neo-Cons on the topic but I don't feel like digging. As many of you probably know, you can find out where Rumsfeld's ideas and actions come from at http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm

I personally think that the war in Iraq was always a part of a larger strategy. For some it was about revenge (9-11, 9-11, God Bless America), for some oil (heloooo, Dick), while for some it was about protecting Eretz Israel (those would be the ones from the New American Century with such names as *feld, *berg, *witz, *man, Rose* -- of course, * stands for a wildcard string).

ANTI-SEMITE, ANTI-SEMITE! That's what someone who's never met a Jewish person or who is a hard-core Zionist would probably say.

[nuckles]

I think something more sinister is happening



And take a gander at these examples...

[Azure]

Actually forget it. I'll be labelled as an idiot, dumbass or whatever the hell people on here call those that don't agree with them.

Personally I think these threads are getting a bit ridiculous. One question though. It is documented that the Democrats flat out said that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Did they lie too?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

It is documented that the Democrats flat out said that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Did they lie too?

The Democrats agreed with the information that was presented to them. The Bush administration got to pick and choose what information was presented and gave congress a package that was shaped in the manner the Bushies wanted. It's similar to the magician who tells you to pick a card and magically tells you what your card was. Only thing is that he knew that all 52 cards were the same because he set the deck up that way.

[Ayrahb]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually forget it. I'll be labelled as an idiot, dumbass or whatever the hell people on here call those that don't agree with them.

Personally I think these threads are getting a bit ridiculous. One question though. It is documented that the Democrats flat out said that Saddam Hussein had WMD. Did they lie too?

I didn't get to see the part that we are supposed to forget and I am not going to guess what it was about. I disagree that the threads like this are ridiculous as I believe that everyone could use some testing their opinions against those of others. Even when others resort to childish name-calling.

I personally don't care whether it was a Democrat or Neo-Con lying or having secret agendas. As long as they have the testes to face the music and and not keep thumbing their noses at us. Rumsfeld et al. are currently in power and have the ability to escalate this crap further. When a Democrat is in such a position, I certainly hope and expect that I would react the same way.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

I didn't get to see the part that we are supposed to forget and I am not going to guess what it was about. I disagree that the threads like this are ridiculous as I believe that everyone could use some testing their opinions against those of others. Even when others resort to childish name-calling.

I personally don't care whether it was a Democrat or Neo-Con lying or having secret agendas. As long as they have the testes to face the music and and not keep thumbing their noses at us.

Read through many of the threads? Outside of maybe a few posts, most people are resorting to name-calling, childish insults and labeling to further their arguement. In fact it is impossible for someone to mention their opinion without being labeled as an idiot, ###### or moron.

I have no problem with debating, but these threads would be worth the read if people would quit insulting each other.

[Ayrahb]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

I personally don't care whether it was a Democrat or Neo-Con lying or having secret agendas. As long as they have the testes to face the music and and not keep thumbing their noses at us. Rumsfeld et al. are currently in power and have the ability to escalate this crap further. When a Democrat is in such a position, I certainly hope and expect that I would react the same way.

Damn, I really don't know how to express my thoughts today. It was supposed to read something like this:

If Democrats were in power and going about things in a similar way, I hope and expect that I would be on their case just the same.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Ayrahb

Damn, I really don't know how to express my thoughts today. It was supposed to read something like this:

If Democrats were in power and going about things in a similar way, I hope and expect that I would be on their case just the same.

But you know that wouldn't be the case. Some people here are so blind in their hatred towards Bush, anything he does is bad. Anything.

Hell the democrats could start a war that would result in 50,000 American soldiers being killed, yet "Bush" or the conservatives would still be blamed for it.

Wait a second.....

[oldschoolcalgary]

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?

the last public appearance I remember from Scott Ritter was on CNN's newsnight with Aaron Brown and how a previously sealed court sentencing had leaked to the media that basically insinuated that Ritter had done something untowards to a minor...

Up to that point, Ritter had been a vocal opponent of the adminstration's position that Saddam had WMDs.

After that interview, Ritter basically dropped off the radar: no news organization made use of his experience as a result of this incident that occurred 8 or 10 years earlier.

Funny how that works isn't it?

Here's an article on that documentary and its financing-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/writt04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixnewstop.html

an interview by Paula Zahn with Ritter, a couple of questions with regard to the documentary:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/1...nna/index.html

probably won't sway people from their mindsets, but take it for what its worth as both sources are fairly neutral (ie not Fox News nor NY Times)...

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you know that wouldn't be the case. Some people here are so blind in their hatred towards Bush, anything he does is bad. Anything.

Hell the democrats could start a war that would result in 50,000 American soldiers being killed, yet "Bush" or the conservatives would still be blamed for it.

Wait a second.....

I can't speak for others but I don't hate Bush and although I lean to the left, I don't consider myself an idealogue. I'm angry that his lies have been used to justify a war and cause the deaths of many soldiers and civilians. I'm angry that instead of bringing stability to the mideast, he's given the terrorists a new breeding ground. I'm angry that instead of looking after the U.S.A.s economy, his policies have caused a huge deficit propped up by printing more money which has caused the price of oil to skyrocket. Can inflation be far behind?

An American can say these are their own problems, but every Canadian knows that when the USA flinches Canada takes an elbow to the ribs.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you know that wouldn't be the case. Some people here are so blind in their hatred towards Bush, anything he does is bad. Anything.

Hell the democrats could start a war that would result in 50,000 American soldiers being killed, yet "Bush" or the conservatives would still be blamed for it.

Wait a second.....

LOL...thought that was pretty funny.

Although, to be fair, prior to Vietnam there wasn't nearly as much partisanship as their is now. You could be more of a centrist and still be a Replubican, or you could lean to the left and still be considered a Dem (See: George Wallace). So blaming the Republicans might not be entirely correct but the conservatives can carry some of it.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Azure

But you know that wouldn't be the case. Some people here are so blind in their hatred towards Bush, anything he does is bad. Anything.

Hell the democrats could start a war that would result in 50,000 American soldiers being killed, yet "Bush" or the conservatives would still be blamed for it.

Wait a second.....

What a load of bull****. Bush gets dog piled because he's an idiot and does things that are completely against the common good of the nation. If Bush worried about the crap going on in his own backyard and stopped sticking his nose in other nations he would get a much better reception. There are HUGE problems in the United States that could be using the billion and a half dollars a day he's blowing in Iraq. Medicare, education, infrastructure, and social security are all at danger levels, requiring immediate attention. Focus on your own nation before trying to build another one elsewhere. Jesus, Bush is a guy whose companies couldn't find oil in Texas OR the middle east. And we're supposed to trust him to build a democracy in the Islamic world? He barely managed to operate one in Texas.

If the Democrats started a war that cost ~50,000 lives you can bet your ass that the people would be up in arms. Come to think of it, the nation was up in arms when that happened. Remember Vietnam? If it was a Democrat that started this mess, he would be demonized so badly. Hell, I think he would have been assassinated by now. At worst he would have been run out of office by the Republican noise machine. FoxNews and Clear Channel would be on him night and day, just like they were on Clinton for getting head. If the Democrats had a communications network in their back pocket like the GOP does, Bush would be done too. But with the endless propaganda of Fox and Clear Channel going 24x7, Bush gets a positive message echoing through the zietgeist on a daily basis. That's what has saved his ass to date.

[transplant99]

If the Democrats started a war that cost ~50,000 lives you can bet your ass that the people would be up in arms.

But people wouldn't be up in arms in the Republicans started a war that cost 50,000 US lives?

Is that what you are saying?

Or is the 50,000 the entire count including Iraqis/insurgents etc?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

But people wouldn't be up in arms in the Republicans started a war that cost 50,000 US lives?

Is that what you are saying?

Or is the 50,000 the entire count including Iraqis/insurgents etc?

That is not what I am saying, so please don't try and put words in my mouth. The question posed to say that the Democrats would get a free pass if they started a war in which 50,000 people died, which is just untrue. The Democrats would get the same treatment, and probably worse because of the media machine that is in the Republican's back pocket. If the Democrats did 1/10th of the garbage that the Republicans have in the past five years they would be hunted down and publicly hung. Jesus, Clinton lied about getting head in the Oval Office and it caused a **** storm of epic proportions. Imagine if he had decided to invade Kosovo, 3,000 Americans were killed, and a billion and a half dollars a day was spent "nation building", what would the response have been? How kind do you think Fox and Clear Channel would be in support of that war?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Hell the democrats could start a war that would result in 50,000 American soldiers being killed, yet "Bush" or the conservatives would still be blamed for it.

I'm a bit puzzled by this statement--and no, I'm not going to resort to name-calling. But are you saying that conservatives got blamed for wars started by liberals in the past?

I'll bite. The two wars you must be talking about are Vietnam and WWII--though of course the latter was not "started" but joined in progress--and you could actually argue the same about the former, if you want to split hairs.

WWII: FDR's hands were tied--but he gets both the credit and the blame--and this is perhaps understandable, given that the next president was Truman, also a Democrat.

Vietnam: I think most people blame LBJ for Vietnam, not Nixon. But don't you think Nixon deserves part of the blame for not ending American involvement sooner? Of course, hindsight is 20/20--but I highly doubt there's anyone who blames Republicans for this war per se.

[transplant99]

That is not what I am saying, so please don't try and put words in my mouth

Ummm...which is why i asked the question.

Which, (getting back to) I am pretty sure that ANY administration would be positively pummelled if they led an American army into that kind of loss of life....as has happened in the past.

And you really need to give up the ghost of the media being in the "republicans back pocket" Lanny. It simply isnt true, never has been and never will be.

As for the Clinton thing, I too think the witch hunt was beyond absurd, BUT...he didnt just lie about it, he lied UNDER OATH to a grand jury. He was also suspected of perjury in the Paula Jones fiasco.

That is why he was impeached, not because he lied about sex....i think many lose sight of that fact. Yet he still continued in office.

Then there was the whole Whitewater thing...and he too escaped from that.

Then there was his stance on Iraq...

These are all things he stated as President and while in office..

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors,"

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people,"

So the whole "neo-con" conspiracy theory that says they LIED about WMD, must now be applied to the Liberals as well since they said the same damn thing.....right?

And the night before he BOMBED Iraq in 1998, he stated this in an address to the American people from the White House...

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"

You see....maybe there were no WMD when the Americans finally crossed into Iraq, but there was, without a doubt, a belief by most for years before that he DID have them and never proved he had destroyed them.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


So this "lying" stuff is just goofy...cause if he lied, then so did the UN, Clinton and just about every other foreign leader during the late 90's and early part on the new millenium.

Hey...maybe we can blame the illuminati??

[CaptainCrunch]

You guys need to quit hammering on the Illuminati, for the most part we hang out, eat ribs and play ping pong.