PDA

View Full Version : Great audio of Rummy lying about lying


Ugly Duck
05-04-2006, 06:53 PM
Listen to Rummy get ripped by an ex-CIA guy - its great! Rummy tells the guy he never said he "knew where the weapons of mass destruction were." Lies upon lies to attempt to cover up his lies. Hit the "click here" link:

http://www.wegoted.com/News/more.asp?ID=1199

PunkinDrublic
05-05-2006, 09:59 AM
That was great. Dumsfeld is such a POS.

DanT
05-05-2006, 10:32 AM
Here's the original question and answer. It was part of an interview by George Stephanopoulos of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld that was televised on March 30, 2003, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?


SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.


Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.


I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.


Second, the criminal facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes.


I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.


A few months later (10Sep2003), Secretary Rumsfeld was asked at a National Press Club luncheon about the above answer and made the following answer:
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030910-secdef0661.html

Lytle: On March 30th you said, referring to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, quote, "We know where they are." Do you know where they are now? And will they be found?


Rumsfeld: When you quote me, as opposed to somebody else, I do remember the context. (Laughter.) And in that instance, we had been in the country for about 15 seconds; sometimes I overstate for emphasis. The truth is, we'd been there about two weeks. And the forces were fighting up from the south -- maybe three weeks -- fighting up from the south, heading towards Baghdad. And we were besieged with questions: "You haven't found any weapons of mass destruction yet. Why not?" And I said, very simply: Because all of our information is that they are in the -- more -- closer to Baghdad, in the area from Baghdad north, and we were not physically on the ground in that area at the present time.


What we had, as Secretary Powell told the United Nations, is a long list of suspect sites. And they were sites that the inspectors had been in the process of looking at when they concluded that the inspection process really wasn't working, because of lack of cooperation on the part of Saddam Hussein's regime. And I said, "We know they're in that area." I should have said, "I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area," and that was our best judgment. And we were being pressed to find them while the war was still in its earliest, earliest days. And it seemed to me a somewhat unrealistic expectation.


And needless to say, here we are now, the major conflict ended May 1st. It's now September 10th. And the process is still going on. We've got hundreds and hundreds of people there under the leadership of Mr. David Kay, a former U.N. inspector, and they are proceeding in an orderly way, interviewing and interrogating people.


It was always pretty clear, to me, at least, that we were unlikely to just find something or discover something by going out and looking. It had to be because somebody told us where to look. And so, it's the interrogation process that is what's taking place, and that information is being accumulated, and they will make an interim report at some point, and then a final report at some point, and we'll have the outcome of it. But that is the -- I think the date on that was well before May 1st.


Lytle: But you do believe that they will be found at some point?


Rumsfeld: I do. I think that the U.S. intelligence and the intelligence services of the other countries were never perfect, and it was a closed society, but sufficiently good that we'll find the kind of evidence of programs that Secretary Powell presented to the United Nations.

Yesterday, the following exchange took place in Atlanta, according to this Reuters wire story:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060504/pl_nm/iraq_usa_rumsfeld_dc
McGovern shot back, "You said you knew where they were," referring to the Iraqi weapons.


"I did not," Rumsfeld retorted. "I said I knew where suspect sites were."


"You said you know where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words," McGovern shot back.

You got that? Supposedly, when Mr. Rumsfeld used "they" in his original answer to Mr. Stephanopoulos, the antecedent wasn't WMD, it was "suspect sites". That what Mr. Rumsfeld is currently claiming. He's claiming that "we" had certain knowledge of a list of suspect sites that the United Nations inspectors had already compiled, as if there were some question as to whether or not the location of those sites were known. Why wouldn't we know that list? Of course we knew that list. Incredible. That's the Secretary of Defense in this country.

patteeu
05-05-2006, 11:56 AM
You got that? Supposedly, when Mr. Rumsfeld used "they" in his original answer to Mr. Stephanopoulos, the antecedent wasn't WMD, it was "suspect sites". That what Mr. Rumsfeld is currently claiming. He's claiming that "we" had certain knowledge of a list of suspect sites that the United Nations inspectors had already compiled, as if there were some question as to whether or not the location of those sites were known. Why wouldn't we know that list? Of course we knew that list. Incredible. That's the Secretary of Defense in this country.

Other than seeming to deny that he said specific words, isn't it plausible that he really did mean what he now says he meant? Sure his original language was imprecise and it could be taken to be a statement of 100% certainty, but since it could not be anything other than a belief based on intelligence (as opposed to a 100% certain fact) it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to consider this kind of thing a lie. IMO, the worst case but fair interpretation would be that he was exaggerating his certainty, but it seems equally plausible to me that his true belief in the intelligence was so strong that it was a negligible exaggeration.

*edit* BTW, I realize that you didn't explicitly accuse him of lying with his original statement, but I'm referring to others who have (e.g. the thread starter). */edit*

jAZ
05-05-2006, 02:14 PM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/PaulaZahn-Ray-McGovern.wmv

irishjayhawk
05-05-2006, 03:04 PM
Other than seeming to deny that he said specific words, isn't it plausible that he really did mean what he now says he meant? Sure his original language was imprecise and it could be taken to be a statement of 100% certainty, but since it could not be anything other than a belief based on intelligence (as opposed to a 100% certain fact) it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to consider this kind of thing a lie. IMO, the worst case but fair interpretation would be that he was exaggerating his certainty, but it seems equally plausible to me that his true belief in the intelligence was so strong that it was a negligible exaggeration.

*edit* BTW, I realize that you didn't explicitly accuse him of lying with his original statement, but I'm referring to others who have (e.g. the thread starter). */edit*
I am just wondering something: Is there anything you WON'T defend this administration or anyone involved with the administration on?

the Talking Can
05-05-2006, 03:05 PM
just because he is lying it doesn't mean he is lying...come on....

sometimes a lie is just a lie, sometimes it is also a lie

there are lies and there are lies

lies don't kill people, guns do

it may be a lie, it may be also just a lie...who can say

sometimes lies lie, in which case lying is the cure...

several lies together are called a lie...in China they call this lying...in Mexico, though, they refer to it as a lie...

all I am saying is give lies a chance...

irishjayhawk
05-05-2006, 03:08 PM
just because he is lying it doesn't mean he is lying...come on....

sometimes a lie is just a lie, sometimes it is also a lie

there are lies and there are lies

lies don't kill people, guns do

it may be a lie, it may be also just a lie...who can say

sometimes lies lie, in which case lying is the cure...

several lies together are called a lie...in China they call this lying...in Mexico, though, they refer to it as a lie...

all I am saying is give lies a chance...
ROFL

Rep.

patteeu
05-05-2006, 03:15 PM
I am just wondering something: Is there anything you WON'T defend this administration or anyone involved with the administration on?

Of course there is.

irishjayhawk
05-05-2006, 03:24 PM
Of course there is.
I should rephrase a bit. Anything at the current time that you don't support?

Ultra Peanut
05-05-2006, 03:43 PM
You guys need to stop being so, "Henny Penny, the sky is falling," and stuff...

DanT
05-05-2006, 03:57 PM
Other than seeming to deny that he said specific words, isn't it plausible that he really did mean what he now says he meant? Sure his original language was imprecise and it could be taken to be a statement of 100% certainty, but since it could not be anything other than a belief based on intelligence (as opposed to a 100% certain fact) it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to consider this kind of thing a lie. IMO, the worst case but fair interpretation would be that he was exaggerating his certainty, but it seems equally plausible to me that his true belief in the intelligence was so strong that it was a negligible exaggeration.

*edit* BTW, I realize that you didn't explicitly accuse him of lying with his original statement, but I'm referring to others who have (e.g. the thread starter). */edit*

If I understand what he's now saying he said, he meant that he knew where the suspect sites were. Why would there be anything other than 100% certain knowledge of the locations of the sites on the United States government's list of suspected sites? What he's now claiming he meant is something that wouldn't even be worth saying. That's what I'm saying. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying that we have a Secretary of Defense in this country who gives ridiculous explanations about what he meant to say when he said what he said.

Would you want to be on a project in which a man like that wrote the mission statement? I know I wouldn't. Project couldn't be more doomed than if the specification of objectives were written in crayon on the ass of an old catfish that was released back into the Old Muddy.

DanT
05-05-2006, 04:15 PM
In fairness to Secretary Rumsfeld, it should be pointed out that the original question from Mr. Stephanopoulos was complex and that Secretary Rumsfeld took it as a two-part question. It's easy to see how someone could mangle their grammar in answering a question like that, especially in an interview situation.

memyselfI
05-05-2006, 04:31 PM
Other than seeming to deny that he said specific words, isn't it plausible that he really did mean what he now says he meant? Sure his original language was imprecise and it could be taken to be a statement of 100% certainty, but since it could not be anything other than a belief based on intelligence (as opposed to a 100% certain fact) it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to consider this kind of thing a lie. IMO, the worst case but fair interpretation would be that he was exaggerating his certainty, but it seems equally plausible to me that his true belief in the intelligence was so strong that it was a negligible exaggeration.

*edit* BTW, I realize that you didn't explicitly accuse him of lying with his original statement, but I'm referring to others who have (e.g. the thread starter). */edit*

Ok, I FINALLY get it, you are playing the part of contrarian and devil's advocate and not clueless, head up your azz, apologist Bushbot... :thumb:

I can't believe it took me so long to figure it out. :doh!:

memyselfI
05-05-2006, 04:32 PM
In fairness to Secretary Rumsfeld, it should be pointed out that the original question from Mr. Stephanopoulos was complex and that Secretary Rumsfeld took it as a two-part question. It's easy to see how someone could mangle their grammar in answering a question like that, especially in an interview situation.

Yep, it's possible. It's also possible to continue to have these types of OOOPs on a regular basis for five plus years. :hmmm:

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-05-2006, 04:59 PM
Other than seeming to deny that he said specific words, isn't it plausible that he really did mean what he now says he meant? Sure his original language was imprecise and it could be taken to be a statement of 100% certainty, but since it could not be anything other than a belief based on intelligence (as opposed to a 100% certain fact) it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to consider this kind of thing a lie. IMO, the worst case but fair interpretation would be that he was exaggerating his certainty, but it seems equally plausible to me that his true belief in the intelligence was so strong that it was a negligible exaggeration.

*edit* BTW, I realize that you didn't explicitly accuse him of lying with his original statement, but I'm referring to others who have (e.g. the thread starter). */edit*

Patteu's RED SHIFT INDICATES HIS INCREASING DISTANCE FROM REALITY (The velocity made possible courtesy of some hellacious acceleration into the realm of the asinine)

the Talking Can
05-05-2006, 06:39 PM
Patteu's RED SHIFT INDICATES HIS INCREASING DISTANCE FROM REALITY (The velocity made possible courtesy of some hellacious acceleration into the realm of the asinine)

ROFL



Colonel Sandurz: Prepare ship for Light Speed.
Dark Helmet: No. No. No. No. Light Speed is too slow.
Colonel Sandurz: Light Speed too slow?
Dark Helmet: Yes. We're gonna have to go right to, Ludicrous Speed.
[people in background gasp]
Colonel Sandurz: Ludicrous Speed? Sir, we've never gone that fast before. I don't know if this ship can take it.
Dark Helmet: What's a matter, Colonel Sandurz? CHICKEN???

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark Helmet: Ludicrous Speed...GO!

patteeu
05-05-2006, 07:46 PM
I should rephrase a bit. Anything at the current time that you don't support?

Definitely.

patteeu
05-05-2006, 08:05 PM
If I understand what he's now saying he said, he meant that he knew where the suspect sites were. Why would there be anything other than 100% certain knowledge of the locations of the sites on the United States government's list of suspected sites? What he's now claiming he meant is something that wouldn't even be worth saying. That's what I'm saying. I'm not calling him a liar. I'm saying that we have a Secretary of Defense in this country who gives ridiculous explanations about what he meant to say when he said what he said.

Would you want to be on a project in which a man like that wrote the mission statement? I know I wouldn't. Project couldn't be more doomed than if the specification of objectives were written in crayon on the ass of an old catfish that was released back into the Old Muddy.

I think what he is saying is that, at the time of the Stephanopolus interview, he knew with 100% certainty where suspect sites were and that he was very confident (to the point that, in his mind, saying "I know" instead of "I think" wasn't an exaggeration) that WMD existed at those sites.

His extemporaneous explanations may leave something to be desired in terms of precision and clarity, and if that's why people are down on him then that's fair enough although IMO that standard is pretty high and in most cases I doubt that those critics apply that standard across-the-board to all public speakers/leaders/government officials.

But I think it is unfair for critics to say he lied based on a single sentence extracted from his Stephanopolus answer that, on it's own, appears to be expressing 100% certainty about the precise location of WMD (when a little common sense and context would indicate to them that he had no way of being 100% certain and he was talking about a big region that US forces had not yet reached as opposed to a precise location).

banyon
05-05-2006, 08:10 PM
I think what he is saying is that, at the time of the Stephanopolus interview, he knew with 100% certainty where suspect sites were and that he was very confident (to the point that, in his mind, saying "I know" instead of "I think" wasn't an exaggeration) that WMD existed at those sites.

His extemporaneous explanations may leave something to be desired in terms of precision and clarity, and if that's why people are down on him then that's fair enough although IMO that standard is pretty high and in most cases I doubt that those critics apply that standard across-the-board to all public speakers/leaders/government officials.

But I think it is unfair for critics to say he lied based on a single sentence extracted from his Stephanopolus answer that, on it's own, appears to be expressing 100% certainty about the precise location of WMD (when a little common sense and context would indicate to them that he had no way of being 100% certain and he was talking about a big region that US forces had not yet reached as opposed to a precise location).

patteeu, can you use the phrase "I know where the _______ is, in [x Area]." in a convincing analyogy that doesn't make it seem deceitful if you are mistaken? (Rumsfeld's emphasis added)

patteeu
05-05-2006, 08:11 PM
Patteu's RED SHIFT INDICATES HIS INCREASING DISTANCE FROM REALITY (The velocity made possible courtesy of some hellacious acceleration into the realm of the asinine)

I see that you are now caught up on the red-shift is related to velocity as opposed to acceleration thing now. Good job. But... (I hesitate to do this and risk going down the path of another boring physics-related argument, but I can't resist) ... you know what's funny about your smack this time? It's only a red-shift if you're observing it from a location in the direction that the object is headed. So when you say I have red shift and that I'm headed away from reality and into the realm of the assinine, you seem to be indicating that you're already there watching me approach. ROFL

patteeu
05-05-2006, 08:20 PM
patteeu, can you use the phrase "I know where the _______ is, in [x Area]." in a convincing analyogy that doesn't make it seem deceitful if you are mistaken? (Rumsfeld's emphasis added)

How about, "I know where the peanut butter is, in my kitchen pantry." And when I get home I find out the kids ate it yesterday.

I really believed it was at home because I saw it there just a couple of days ago and my wife and kids don't eat it very often so the idea that it might have been eaten in the past day or two doesn't even cross my mind. I'm confident to near certainty but instead of accounting for the slim possibility that something has happened to it and saying I'm "pretty sure," I say "I know."

When we get to my house and find out what happened, do you think I'm a liar/deceitful or do you just think I was wrong?

banyon
05-05-2006, 08:35 PM
How about, "I know where the peanut butter is, in my kitchen pantry." And when I get home I find out the kids ate it yesterday.

I really believed it was at home because I saw it there just a couple of days ago and my wife and kids don't eat it very often so the idea that it might have been eaten in the past day or two doesn't even cross my mind. I'm confident to near certainty but instead of accounting for the slim possibility that something has happened to it and saying I'm "pretty sure," I say "I know."

When we get to my house and find out what happened, do you think I'm a liar/deceitful or do you just think I was wrong?

great, now if you were going to go on TV in front of a national audience to talk about your peanut butter, would you double check, or just wing it?

memyselfI
05-05-2006, 08:45 PM
great, now if you were going to go on TV in front of a national audience to talk about your peanut butter, would you double check, or just wing it?

You know, his analogy is probably really very accurate...

It would probably be hard to find a jar of peanut butter in a refrigerator the size of California. ROFL

DanT
05-05-2006, 09:00 PM
I think what he is saying is that, at the time of the Stephanopolus interview, he knew with 100% certainty where suspect sites were and that he was very confident (to the point that, in his mind, saying "I know" instead of "I think" wasn't an exaggeration) that WMD existed at those sites.

His extemporaneous explanations may leave something to be desired in terms of precision and clarity, and if that's why people are down on him then that's fair enough although IMO that standard is pretty high and in most cases I doubt that those critics apply that standard across-the-board to all public speakers/leaders/government officials.

But I think it is unfair for critics to say he lied based on a single sentence extracted from his Stephanopolus answer that, on it's own, appears to be expressing 100% certainty about the precise location of WMD (when a little common sense and context would indicate to them that he had no way of being 100% certain and he was talking about a big region that US forces had not yet reached as opposed to a precise location).


Thanks for the reply, patteeu. Here's an excerpt from a 19January2003 interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday that I'm almost certain
(see how that works ;) ) you will find interesting:
=====================================================
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t01202003_t0119sdfox.html


Snow: Sir, I understand the vagaries of the Security Council, but I'm more interested in what's going in the United States, because there are a lot of people who are supportive of you and supportive of this administration who are worried at this point that the United States will go in, not find enough to justify it, and all of a sudden the United States will be seen as an aggressor rather than a liberator. Are you confident that the information we have will be of the sort that if a war were to commence that the American people could be proud of it?

Rumsfeld: I -- there is no doubt in my mind but that the intelligence community's information is as I have stated it, and that it is a case that the American people would be comfortable with. There's always a degree of uncertainty, and -- and let me explain that. If you think of all the effort after September 11th in the Congress, and now with the new commission, to try to find out what happened, what was there that was going on before September 11th that we might have been able to do something. Now, what we're trying to do here is to connect the dots before the fact, not after the fact. It's easier after the fact, and it's very difficult after the fact, but we're trying to do it before the fact. And I think we've done a darn good job.

Snow: But do you think the full picture would emerge only after there's a regime change in Iraq?

Rumsfeld: Oh, until you get into the -- into the country and on the ground and are able to talk to everybody and literally go out and find things that he's been hiding, you'll -- the full picture would -- that's the only time the full picture would be clear.

Snow: The United Nations -- you mentioned a moment ago that you think things are being stood on their head -- the United Nations said to Saddam Hussein, "You need to take all your weapons, you need to put them in a big pile and let the inspectors inspects, and not be finders" as you pointed out. But we see Hans Blix saying, "Well, we need to do more inspections." In other words, more attempts to find. Given the way these inspections are organized right now, is there any chance, in your mind, that they can succeed?

Rumsfeld: Well, I think the -- it depends on what you mean by succeed. I think that --

Snow: Uncover weapons or weapons development programs.

Rumsfeld: That he's trying to hide?

Snow: Yes.

Rumsfeld: No. No. I think the test is not that. The test is, is Saddam Hussein cooperating or is he not cooperating? That is what ought to be being measured. That's what the U.N. asked for. That's what the U.N. said -- file a correct declaration, open things up, show the world what you have. He's not doing that. I mean, you could spend years and years roaming around a country that size trying to find underground tunnels and see where he's located things.

jettio
05-05-2006, 09:08 PM
Considering the potential of the United States of America, it is absolutely incredible that we could not find an honest person with a brain to replace that lying sack of incompetent Raiduhs

banyon
05-05-2006, 09:10 PM
I am just wondering something: Is there anything you WON'T defend this administration or anyone involved with the administration on?

Another ex-Republican bites the dust. I think he's talking about patteeu :p:

_______________________________________________________

Al Neuharth Bashes Bush, Says His Supporters are 'In Denial'

By E&P Staff

Published: May 04, 2006 11:30 PM ET

NEW YORK USA Today founder Al Neuharth, once known for his generally Republican views, appears to have seen enough of President Bush. In his column today for USA Today, he once again hits the Iraq war (he is one of the few mainstream journalists to favor a quick withdrawal), then notes the presient's approval rating having plunged from 71% to 34% in the Gallup poll since 2003.

"How low can Bush's approval rating go? My hunch is it's at or near the bottom," he suggests. "That 34% represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial. As were the 24% in the polls who still approved of President Richard Nixon before he resigned in disgrace.

"What happened to the 37% who have switched from pro-Bush to anti-Bush? They finally realized they were suckered by Bush and his buddies back then about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, his tie to terrorists and his threat to the USA."

Neuharth, a decorated war veteran, concludes: "President Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: 'You may fool all of the people some of the time; you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.'"

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463304

banyon
05-06-2006, 10:50 AM
AMY GOODMAN: That was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld responding to questions by retired C.I.A. analyst Ray McGovern at an event in Atlanta on Thursday. Ray McGovern joins us in our studio now from Atlanta. Some of the media said “alleged” former C.I.A. analyst. Ray McGovern has been with the agency for more than a quarter of a century and was one of the top briefers of Vice President George H.W. Bush. He's now co-founder of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS. Welcome to Democracy Now!, Ray.

RAY McGOVERN: Thank you, Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, tell us about this event yesterday, a quite raucous event, interruptions and then your questioning. A very rare moment for one of the more insulated government officials to be questioned by, well, a former C.I.A. analyst.

RAY McGOVERN: Well, Amy, just listening to this little clip here, I find it scary. These were ostensibly educated normal people, and their reaction was very much like the one that Goebbels stirred up. You can see it was a very unfriendly audience to anyone who posed any kind of question to the Defense Secretary. So -- and listening to it, I'm sort of scared, because if this is indicative of the brainwashing that has taken place, it's going be a long, long struggle to speak truth to power, as Fannie Lou Hamer so famously said, and Damu Smith, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, Ray, let's go through the questions and how the secretary responded to you. The issue -- the last one, of Zarqawi, saying that there is a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, that's the best they could come up with after all of this misinformation, with Cheney saying there were contacts between Iraqis and people in Prague and so forth. Zarqawi was up in the north part of the country. He had no contact with Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein was not ruling that part of the area.

AMY GOODMAN: Wasn't the U.S.?

RAY McGOVERN: Yeah, the U.S. and the Kurds were up there. They could have got Zarqawi in an eyelash, in a moment, but they chose not to. So it was completely disingenuous, and for the people not to be able to listen to that, to hear it, but simply join in the applause for Rumsfeld was a bit disquieting.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And when Secretary Rumsfeld responds about the troops believing that there were chemical weapons, because they were wearing uniforms or chemical suits. Your response?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, talk about that disingenuity. I mean, sure, they wore chemical [suits], because Rumsfeld and his generals ordered them to. This proves nothing, other than they went through with this charade. The Australian troops wore no such protective covering, because they knew there were no weapons there. The Australians knew these weapons were a figment of the propaganda put out by our Defense Department, so they blithely went in there without any protective covering. So it was all a charade.

And I suppose the good news is that finally someone had a chance to ask Don Rumsfeld -- if I were in Washington, I never would have got into a session where Rumsfeld spoke. I have to give him credit that he took questions and answers. But, you know, it's really interesting that when I walked into the place, I wrangled a ticket very surreptitiously. I was met with this little blurb on Donald Rumsfeld, and as I read it, I had to chuckle. It says, “There’s going to be a question-and-answer period, but please adhere to these guidelines. Refrain from using the word ‘lie’ in relation to the war in Iraq. Do not question the secretary’s personal responsibility for torture. And please don’t discuss first use of nuclear weapons against Iran. If you violate these guidelines, you'll be immediately removed from the auditorium, flown to an undesignated prison location somewhere in Eastern Europe and tortured. Thank you for your cooperation. The World Cannot Wait.” A wonderful, wonderful group. Those were the folks that spoke up and tried to brace Donald Rumsfeld with the lies and their charges of him being -- and he is, arguably -- a war criminal. And we shouldn't shy away from saying that.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And, Ray, when you were asking the questions, at one point off camera, you were saying, “This is America.” What was happening at that point?

RAY McGOVERN: Well, curiously enough, a very large man came down with a white coat on, and he stuck his elbow into my chest and started pushing me back. And I pushed back, literally and figuratively. And it was the moment of truth. Would Don Rumsfeld want me thrown out of there, having asked in a very civil manner simply pointed questions, or would he ask them not to remove me? He chose the wiser course. I first thought that this was him being gracious, but when I thought of the P.R. debacle it would have been for him to have me removed after simply posing these questions, which nobody else has the guts to pose him, that he chose the wiser course from a P.R. point of view, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: Ray McGovern, I want to thank you very much for being with us, analyst with the C,I.A. for more than a quarter of a century and one of the top briefers of Vice President George H.W. Bush, co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1432203

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 11:00 AM
How about, "I know where the peanut butter is, in my kitchen pantry." And when I get home I find out the kids ate it yesterday.

I really believed it was at home because I saw it there just a couple of days ago and my wife and kids don't eat it very often so the idea that it might have been eaten in the past day or two doesn't even cross my mind. I'm confident to near certainty but instead of accounting for the slim possibility that something has happened to it and saying I'm "pretty sure," I say "I know."

When we get to my house and find out what happened, do you think I'm a liar/deceitful or do you just think I was wrong?

In that case, I'd think you were wrong. However, if you were wrong and it led to the death of approx. 2500 American soldiers, the maiming of many thousands more, and the unnecessary expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, I'd expect more than an "oops, the kid's ate the peanut butter". :shake:

I'd also think you were deceitful, but that has much more to do with your admission of being trained as a lawyer, and your constant spinning than any single specific instance.

Ugly Duck
05-06-2006, 11:07 AM
OK, ok. The avalanche of lies from the neocon regime has been neutralized by the defense that there are no lies - they just no longer exist. Neocons don't lie, they "overstate for emphasis." They just "meant something other than what they said." Since there are no lies, there are no liars. Neocons have co-opted the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense. Only now its a noble and virtuous quality instead of a despicable weasel maneuver.

Adept Havelock
05-06-2006, 11:10 AM
OK, ok. The avalanche of lies from the neocon regime has been neutralized by the defense that there are no lies - they just no longer exist. Neocons don't lie, they "overstate for emphasis." They just "meant something other than what they said." Since there are no lies, there are no liars. Neocons have co-opted the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense. Only now its a noble and virtuous quality instead of a despicable weasel maneuver.Sounds like that :cuss:"new-fangled sexuular hoo-mann-esst moorral rel-e-ta-vissm" to me!

patteeu
05-06-2006, 12:44 PM
great, now if you were going to go on TV in front of a national audience to talk about your peanut butter, would you double check, or just wing it?

I'd probably call home and double check with my wife. But let me change the scenario just a little bit without ruining the analogy by saying that after I've double checked by phone with my wife but sometime before I get on-air, my kids eat the peanut butter. I still can't be 100% certain but I still say "I know" and I'm still wrong without lying.

go bowe
05-06-2006, 02:05 PM
How about, "I know where the peanut butter is, in my kitchen pantry." And when I get home I find out the kids ate it yesterday.

I really believed it was at home because I saw it there just a couple of days ago and my wife and kids don't eat it very often so the idea that it might have been eaten in the past day or two doesn't even cross my mind. I'm confident to near certainty but instead of accounting for the slim possibility that something has happened to it and saying I'm "pretty sure," I say "I know."

When we get to my house and find out what happened, do you think I'm a liar/deceitful or do you just think I was wrong?there might be a slight infirmity in that analogy...

since we now know that nobody had seen the wmd's recently and that there was no hard evidence that supported such a degree of certainity...

imagine the same situation where you hadn't seen the jar recently (for a number of years, say), would your expression of certainty still be appropriate?

go bowe
05-06-2006, 02:14 PM
In that case, I'd think you were wrong. However, if you were wrong and it led to the death of approx. 2500 American soldiers, the maiming of many thousands more, and the unnecessary expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, I'd expect more than an "oops, the kid's ate the peanut butter". :shake:

I'd also think you were deceitful, but that has much more to do with your admission of being trained as a lawyer, and your constant spinning than any single specific instance.ok, hold on now...

lawyers aren't necessarily deceitful...




but conservatives are... :p :p :p

go bowe
05-06-2006, 02:20 PM
I'd probably call home and double check with my wife. But let me change the scenario just a little bit without ruining the analogy by saying that after I've double checked by phone with my wife but sometime before I get on-air, my kids eat the peanut butter. I still can't be 100% certain but I still say "I know" and I'm still wrong without lying.this is even more inapt...

nobody checked with anything remotely resembling a trusted wife who you know to be reliable and accurate...

and again, in the case of wmd's, nobody saw them at all...

BucEyedPea
05-06-2006, 03:40 PM
OK, ok. The avalanche of lies from the neocon regime has been neutralized by the defense that there are no lies - they just no longer exist. Neocons don't lie, they "overstate for emphasis." They just "meant something other than what they said." Since there are no lies, there are no liars. Neocons have co-opted the "depends on what the definition of 'is' is" defense. Only now its a noble and virtuous quality instead of a despicable weasel maneuver.
Or they actually believe their own lies...so are delusional.
According to Woodward's book, Bush at War the NeoCons, which included Cheney, who was hell bent on going in no matter what and wanted Iraq before 9/11, were pushing for it and won over Bush. Tenent came in with his presentation, but even Bush said "That's all you got? Joe Public will never buy it." But not Cheney...Cheney thought it was splendid.

Does anyone here know that Bush signed an EO handing over our foreign policy to Cheney. It's supposed to be a do-less position, but here we have a VP, for the first time in our history, with a lot of power.

Cheney and the NeoCons, have not been humbled, they are looking for new and bigger enemies, namely Russia and China. Cheney already delivered one of the harshest verbal attacks against Russia since Bush has taken power.

patteeu
05-06-2006, 07:31 PM
Thanks for the reply, patteeu. Here's an excerpt from a 19January2003 interview with Tony Snow on Fox News Sunday that I'm almost certain
(see how that works ;) ) you will find interesting:

Yes, I see how that works and it is reasonable to put a qualifier like that in to cya. I'd guess that at this point, many in the Bush administration wish they had used more qualifiers. But we both know that politicians often don't talk like that. Al Gore doesn't say he's almost certain that global warming is going to cause us problems, he says we are absolutely headed toward certain catastrophe unless we do X, Y and Z. As I've been saying for a long time, the consumers of political statements and sales pitches share some responsibility for understanding what is being said in that they need to apply some common sense and listen with a moderate amount of skepticism. We shouldn't assume we are getting an unbiased, objective statement from politicians or salesmen. We should assume they are applying a spin that casts the best possible light on whatever he/she is trying to sell.

patteeu
05-06-2006, 07:39 PM
RAY McGOVERN: Well, Amy, just listening to this little clip here, I find it scary. These were ostensibly educated normal people, and their reaction was very much like the one that Goebbels stirred up.

:rolleyes:

RAY McGOVERN: Those were the folks that spoke up and tried to brace Donald Rumsfeld with the lies and their charges of him being -- and he is, arguably -- a war criminal. And we shouldn't shy away from saying that.

And I don't think we should shy away from saying that anyone who seriously says/believes that is, arguably, a traitor.

patteeu
05-06-2006, 07:51 PM
there might be a slight infirmity in that analogy...

since we now know that nobody had seen the wmd's recently and that there was no hard evidence that supported such a degree of certainity...

imagine the same situation where you hadn't seen the jar recently (for a number of years, say), would your expression of certainty still be appropriate?

Ok, that's a good criticism so let me refine my analogy. My wife (we'll call her CIA) heard from several of her trusted friends (Mrs. Defector, Mrs. Foreign Intelligence, Mrs. Overhead Surveillance, and Mrs. Signal Intelligence) that my local grocery store has my favorite brand of dill pickles and that they have plenty in stock. She tells me that she's heard from very reliable sources that the store has them in stock so I can stop by and pick some up on the way home. I say, are you sure? And CIA tells me "it's a slam dunk." Later, a friend asks me if he can get those excellent pickles he had at my house the other day at any major grocery store and I tell him that I'm not sure about that but I know he can get them at my local grocery store and that I'm planning on picking some up that night. Unfortunately, when I get there, no pickles. I'm not sure whether there were never any pickles in the first place or if they were there but someone (possibly Mr. Syria) came in and bought them all.

patteeu
05-06-2006, 07:59 PM
In that case, I'd think you were wrong. However, if you were wrong and it led to the death of approx. 2500 American soldiers, the maiming of many thousands more, and the unnecessary expenditure of tens of billions of dollars, I'd expect more than an "oops, the kid's ate the peanut butter". :shake:

If WMD were the only reason we attacked Iraq then that might make sense, but since it isn't, it doesn't. Now, if we'd have gotten to Baghdad and found that there was no Saddam Hussein and that the country was actually being ruled by a group of harmless Puritans and that the whole belief that a brutal regime of Baathists ruled Iraq with an iron fist while supporting terrorism and instability in the region was false and amounted to the mother of all intelligence failures, then I'd certainly expect some apologies and what not.

I'd also think you were deceitful, but that has much more to do with your admission of being trained as a lawyer, and your constant spinning than any single specific instance.

So are you agreeing that it's possible that Rumsfeld actually believed Saddam's regime had WMD and that he actually believed they were in the Tikrit area when he said he knew it?

patteeu
05-06-2006, 08:01 PM
this is even more inapt...

nobody checked with anything remotely resembling a trusted wife who you know to be reliable and accurate...

and again, in the case of wmd's, nobody saw them at all...

I was following the format of the challenge, I wasn't trying to craft an analogy specifically to cover every aspect of the Rumsfeld situation, but check my most recent one for that effort and see if I'm missing anything.

jettio
05-07-2006, 05:26 PM
Ok, that's a good criticism so let me refine my analogy. My wife (we'll call her CIA) heard from several of her trusted friends (Mrs. Defector, Mrs. Foreign Intelligence, Mrs. Overhead Surveillance, and Mrs. Signal Intelligence) that my local grocery store has my favorite brand of dill pickles and that they have plenty in stock. She tells me that she's heard from very reliable sources that the store has them in stock so I can stop by and pick some up on the way home. I say, are you sure? And CIA tells me "it's a slam dunk." Later, a friend asks me if he can get those excellent pickles he had at my house the other day at any major grocery store and I tell him that I'm not sure about that but I know he can get them at my local grocery store and that I'm planning on picking some up that night. Unfortunately, when I get there, no pickles. I'm not sure whether there were never any pickles in the first place or if they were there but someone (possibly Mr. Syria) came in and bought them all.

Curveball and Chalabi like peanut butter and pickles?

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 06:34 PM
If WMD were the only reason we attacked Iraq then that might make sense, but since it isn't, it doesn't.

But patteeu, it was the central reason. It was just a way to get the people's support in the end.

Unless you believe in nation building, and Bush said he wasn't into nation building in his first election. Americanism, which is the idea of a limited republic, isn't about making world peace by waging war or forcing democracy on people by waging wars of national liberation. Communists believe in that.
Bush on record as saying "War is peace." That and his permanent warfare has Orwellian overtones.

"America does not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy." ~ JOHN QUINCY ADAMS

patteeu
05-07-2006, 07:42 PM
But patteeu, it was the central reason. It was just a way to get the people's support in the end.

I don't believe it was "the" central reason. I believe the central reason was to shake up the status quo in the region in order to attack the source of militant jihadism. I think Saddam's Iraq was low hanging fruit among the axis of evil (which, btw, I don't think was limited to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) both in terms of (a) a pre-packaged justification for the use of force based on Saddam's lack of cooperation after PGWI, (b) a seriously depleted military capacity, and (c) an educated population that, in large part, hated their dictator.

I believe that WMD was a serious reason, but I believe it took center stage in the marketing of the war because it was a simple message to convey. Not "just a way to get the people's support" but certainly "a way to get people's support."

Unless you believe in nation building, and Bush said he wasn't into nation building in his first election. Americanism, which is the idea of a limited republic, isn't about making world peace by waging war or forcing democracy on people by waging wars of national liberation. Communists believe in that.
Bush on record as saying "War is peace." That and his permanent warfare has Orwellian overtones.

I don't think that the administration expected to have to do serious nation building in Iraq. I think that that was just something that forced itself on them when their expectations of a receptive welcome went sour. Maybe this was predictable and maybe it wasn't. Certainly many people did predict it, but the trick is to figure out which predictions to rely on in advance because I'd bet that there were people who predicted that we'd suffer thousands of casualties in the invasion too and that didn't turn out to be the case. I think it's fair to question whether the administration did adequate worst case scenario planning in this regard though.

All of the above is, of course, JMO.

BucEyedPea
05-07-2006, 08:06 PM
I don't believe it was "the" central reason. I believe the central reason was to shake up the status quo in the region in order to attack the source of militant jihadism.
Militant jihadism in Iraq? It was a secular state.
Now there is militant jihadism ( well not exactly that or called that) with the Shia's getting revenge on the Sunnis, torture and death squads. They want Islamic law there. The jihadists are exploiting our having gone in.


I think Saddam's Iraq was low hanging fruit among the axis of evil (which, btw, I don't think was limited to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) both in terms of (a) a pre-packaged justification for the use of force based on Saddam's lack of cooperation after PGWI, (b) a seriously depleted military capacity, and (c) an educated population that, in large part, hated their dictator.

I can't buy (a)
I can buy (b)
I don't know about (c) I thought their educated middle-class was small...mostly with higher education from outside their country. What they didn't consider was that it was the fundamentalists that SH targeted in his own country.

I believe that WMD was a serious reason, but I believe it took center stage in the marketing of the war because it was a simple message to convey. Not "just a way to get the people's support" but certainly "a way to get people's support."[quote}
I can accept this...the marketing part. But I can't buy that it was mere simplicity. I feel it was a play on the tragedy of 9/11 fear and hysteria. In fact I see 9/11 as blowback for our ME policies. I don't see this the same as the Cold War.

Fact is Cheney and the NeoCons ( see American Enterprise Institute's PNAC) wanted to go in before 2000 even. There's even a hand written note by Rummy, just after 9/11 saying to go after Iraq. They wanted to...and now they had a reason to market it.

[quote]I don't think that the administration expected to have to do serious nation building in Iraq. I think that that was just something that forced itself on them when their expectations of a receptive welcome went sour. Maybe this was predictable and maybe it wasn't. Certainly many people did predict it, but the trick is to figure out which predictions to rely on in advance because I'd bet that there were people who predicted that we'd suffer thousands of casualties in the invasion too and that didn't turn out to be the case. I think it's fair to question whether the administration did adequate worst case scenario planning in this regard though.
Obviously, as you indicate, at this point Bush admin did miscalculate as you say. There is evidence, that I am reading now, that SH and his army may have even planned out the easy fall, falling back to wage urban guerilla warfare as a surprise attack. Seems like they had a plan.

Guerrilla war can defeat major powers.

Democracy in the ME is likely to put the very people we are threatened by in power not the other way around. Afterall, it is the govt's of Egypt, Jordan and SA that are willing to accept Israel's existence...but they rule an uneasy people who feel differently.

It has created more terror--not less.

patteeu
05-08-2006, 06:36 AM
Militant jihadism in Iraq? It was a secular state.
Now there is militant jihadism ( well not exactly that or called that) with the Shia's getting revenge on the Sunnis, torture and death squads. They want Islamic law there. The jihadists are exploiting our having gone in.

The theory is that militant jihadism will continue to be a problem as long as the Israeli-Palestinian problem exists. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the regioin (e.g. his cash payments to the families of palestinian suicide bombers) and was seen as a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

banyon
05-08-2006, 10:03 AM
:rolleyes:



And I don't think we should shy away from saying that anyone who seriously says/believes that is, arguably, a traitor.

There's a pretty good argument to be made that he broke the Geneva Convention against Torture. If correct, that would qualify in the Hague.

jettio
05-08-2006, 09:53 PM
I don't believe it was "the" central reason. I believe the central reason was to shake up the status quo in the region in order to attack the source of militant jihadism. I think Saddam's Iraq was low hanging fruit among the axis of evil (which, btw, I don't think was limited to Iraq, Iran, and North Korea) both in terms of (a) a pre-packaged justification for the use of force based on Saddam's lack of cooperation after PGWI, (b) a seriously depleted military capacity, and (c) an educated population that, in large part, hated their dictator.

I believe that WMD was a serious reason, but I believe it took center stage in the marketing of the war because it was a simple message to convey. Not "just a way to get the people's support" but certainly "a way to get people's support."



I don't think that the administration expected to have to do serious nation building in Iraq. I think that that was just something that forced itself on them when their expectations of a receptive welcome went sour. Maybe this was predictable and maybe it wasn't. Certainly many people did predict it, but the trick is to figure out which predictions to rely on in advance because I'd bet that there were people who predicted that we'd suffer thousands of casualties in the invasion too and that didn't turn out to be the case. I think it's fair to question whether the administration did adequate worst case scenario planning in this regard though.

All of the above is, of course, JMO.

You nailed the facts.

Unfortunately, your lack of honor makes it impossible for you to see how dishonorable that scheme is.

Our soldiers sailors and marines should not be sent to get blown up fighting wars so unnecessary that a scheme must be hatched in order to sell it.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 05:52 AM
You nailed the facts.

Unfortunately, your lack of honor makes it impossible for you to see how dishonorable that scheme is.

Our soldiers sailors and marines should not be sent to get blown up fighting wars so unnecessary that a scheme must be hatched in order to sell it.

No scheme was hatched. They just looked at the wide array of reasons and decided to use the simple ones in their marketing campaign. Every war has to have a marketing campaign.

BucEyedPea
05-09-2006, 06:04 AM
The theory is that militant jihadism will continue to be a problem as long as the Israeli-Palestinian problem exists. Saddam was a destabilizing force in the regioin (e.g. his cash payments to the families of palestinian suicide bombers) and was seen as a major obstacle to Israeli-Palestinian peace.

I'll agree with ya' on that being the seed that sparked it all. I just don't think doing more of the same thing that originally pissed them off is very smart.
I also do not think we should go so far as to commit American lives and treasure ( including being attacked in 9/11) to secure Israel. It's their cross to bear. I also feel there is fault on both sides and neither side takes responsibility for them.

But really if SH sponsored some terror attacks in another land, not America, it's still not our battle and still does not justify an invasion. Iraq was the lesser of the terrorists nations there. Afterall, they're over here because we're over there. And alQaeda never brought terror to our shores, until AFTER we had our troops on their holy lands. That was the camel that broke its back according to some analysts. So that just shows escalation will make for more terrorism not less. alQaeda is not state sponsored and that's who attacked us. Not Hamas or Hezbolla etc.

There will never be peace in the ME. It will take justice to achieve it. And that ain't gonna ever happen.

jettio
05-09-2006, 10:32 PM
No scheme was hatched. They just looked at the wide array of reasons and decided to use the simple ones in their marketing campaign. Every war has to have a marketing campaign.

It is amazing that you can reach whatever age that you have without having any notion of honor.

Since you are too old or too squeezably soft to join the military, CIA, boy scouts or shriners. Maybe you ought to read comic books or something.

Ugly Duck
05-09-2006, 10:55 PM
If WMD were the only reason we attacked Iraq then that might make sense, but since it isn't, it doesn't. Actually, WMDs were the only reason we invaded Iraq. Nobody thinks there is any possible way that we would have invaded without the "grave and gathering threat" from Sodom's WMDs. None of the little side issue add-ons like "freeing the Iraqi people" or spreading democracy or ending tyranny would have budged Americans into investing lives and fortune in Iraq. The grave threat from WMDs was the one and only reason that invasion had support enough to budge one inch toward Baghdad. And it turned out to be a lie.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 05:28 AM
Actually, WMDs were the only reason we invaded Iraq. Nobody thinks there is any possible way that we would have invaded without the "grave and gathering threat" from Sodom's WMDs. None of the little side issue add-ons like "freeing the Iraqi people" or spreading democracy or ending tyranny would have budged Americans into investing lives and fortune in Iraq. The grave threat from WMDs was the one and only reason that invasion had support enough to budge one inch toward Baghdad. And it turned out to be a lie.

No. :shake:

Ugly Duck
05-10-2006, 07:08 AM
No. :shake:I don't believe that. I don't believe that you are the one person on the planet that thinks America would have supported this invasion sans the threat of WMD. Think back to the runup of the invasion. Now imagine the rhetoric, but this time subtract the threat of WMD stuff. Can you visualize Americans supporting a boots-on-the-ground invasion for the reason of freeing the Iraqi people? How about to promote democracy in the region? How about to combat tyranny? Doesn't work, does it?

Now add a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud, anthrax, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, fleets of drones capable of reaching the US very quickly, etc., etc.. Now you got America's attention, buddy! And you better believe that we're gonna destroy that "grave and gathering threat," we're gonna hit Sodom before he hits us. Now you gotta boots-on-the-ground invasion because we have to protect our mothers & girlfriends & wives from attack.

You take out the WMD threat, you don't have an invasion. I know you can see that.

Velvet_Jones
05-10-2006, 08:21 AM
I’m sick of Bush haters continually to harping that lies where told. This is a total misrepresentation of the truth as well. Just because something turns out to be different than what you expected or thought does not mean that you are lying. It means that you were mistaken in your previous statement. Lying must include intent to deceive, which has not been proven. Therefore, everyone that is harping about the lies is either lying themselves or just plan stupid, or both.

Velvet

FWIW – This is why and how you fuggtards loose elections.

PunkinDrublic
05-10-2006, 08:31 AM
I’m sick of Bush haters continually to harping that lies where told. This is a total misrepresentation of the truth as well. Just because something turns out to be different than what you expected or thought does not mean that you are lying. It means that you were mistaken in your previous statement. Lying must include intent to deceive, which has not been proven. Therefore, everyone that is harping about the lies is either lying themselves or just plan stupid, or both.

Velvet

FWIW – This is why and how you fuggtards loose elections.

Spoken like someone who is truly and completely out of touch with reality. It amazes me that there are still apologist who will defend this failure. Wake the **** up. Even cons are starting to realize what a disaster dubyas presidency has been. Keep clinging to that "you guys can't lose elections" line while you can because you corrupt neocons are about to your asses kicked in the mid-terms. Keep clinging to the sinking ship you just make yourself look even more stupid.

banyon
05-10-2006, 08:35 AM
I’m sick of Bush haters continually to harping that lies where told. This is a total misrepresentation of the truth as well. Just because something turns out to be different than what you expected or thought does not mean that you are lying. It means that you were mistaken in your previous statement. Lying must include intent to deceive, which has not been proven. Therefore, everyone that is harping about the lies is either lying themselves or just plan stupid, or both.

Velvet

FWIW – This is why and how you fuggtards loose elections.

Fabulous non-specific rebuttal!

Velvet_Jones
05-10-2006, 08:36 AM
Spoken like someone who is truly and completely out of touch with reality. It amazes me that there are still apologist who will defend this failure. Wake the **** up. Even cons are starting to realize what a disaster dubyas presidency has been. Keep clinging to that "you guys can't lose elections" line while you can because you corrupt neocons are about to your asses kicked in the mid-terms. Keep clinging to the sinking ship you just make yourself look even more stupid.
I saw no apology in what I wrote. I was stating reality and what a lie truly is. Apparently your too retarded that you can’t see that.

PunkinDrublic
05-10-2006, 08:53 AM
Fabulous non-specific rebuttal!

It's hard for neocons to make a good rebuttal when all you can do is spew cliches and recycled right wing talking points.

Velvet_Jones
05-10-2006, 09:09 AM
It's hard for neocons to make a good rebuttal when all you can do is spew cliches and recycled right wing talking points.
What talking points? You're proving my point that you're a retard.

PunkinDrublic
05-10-2006, 09:35 AM
What talking points? You're proving my point that you're a retard.

Dems can't win elections. That's a favorite talking point of misinformed dittoheads like yourself. It really doesn't suprise me that all you can do is namecall and parrot your favorite faux news talking head. I'm done talking to you you're going to be late for your intelligent design class you ****ing simpleton.

Velvet_Jones
05-10-2006, 10:49 AM
Dems can't win elections. That's a favorite talking point of misinformed dittoheads like yourself. It really doesn't suprise me that all you can do is namecall and parrot your favorite faux news talking head. I'm done talking to you you're going to be late for your intelligent design class you ****ing simpleton.
Hehehe. I knew you were just like jIZ - All too willing to ignore history if it suites your argument. History is you loose elections. I guess the excuse will be “Republican voter fraud” or “we just didn’t get our message out” in November. This psycho hatred is what’s really going to cost you guys again. Of course you are not going to learn from your mistakes. Sounds like a retard to me.

Oh ad it’s obvious that you don’t know me because I am far from religious.

Better be careful or “GOD will Fugg you up”.

Hey jIZ – PunkinDrublic wants to join your circle jerk,

Radar Chief
05-10-2006, 12:26 PM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

October 2002
President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat


There, that link should work.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 12:37 PM
I don't believe that. I don't believe that you are the one person on the planet that thinks America would have supported this invasion sans the threat of WMD. Think back to the runup of the invasion. Now imagine the rhetoric, but this time subtract the threat of WMD stuff. Can you visualize Americans supporting a boots-on-the-ground invasion for the reason of freeing the Iraqi people? How about to promote democracy in the region? How about to combat tyranny? Doesn't work, does it?

Now add a smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud, anthrax, stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, fleets of drones capable of reaching the US very quickly, etc., etc.. Now you got America's attention, buddy! And you better believe that we're gonna destroy that "grave and gathering threat," we're gonna hit Sodom before he hits us. Now you gotta boots-on-the-ground invasion because we have to protect our mothers & girlfriends & wives from attack.

You take out the WMD threat, you don't have an invasion. I know you can see that.

I'm not going to argue with you about this because you are changing the subject. You're talking about why the American public supported an invasion. I was talking about why America invaded. Those are two separate things.

patteeu
05-10-2006, 12:39 PM
It's hard for neocons to make a good rebuttal when all you can do is spew cliches and recycled right wing talking points.

That's ironic.

Ugly Duck
05-10-2006, 01:25 PM
You're talking about why the American public supported an invasion. I was talking about why America invaded. Those are two separate things.Fair enough. I resign.