Rumsfeld gets owned by CIA veteran [Archive]

Joker85

05-11-2006, 17:19

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ds8LlzK20

Watch the video, it's brilliant, watching Rumsfeld flounder around trying to answer this guy's questions.

This guy also believes Bush is actively planning another "sept 11" against the United States. He is a member of an org calling for his impeachment.

I think it should be made clear in situations like these that this man is far from an unbiased CIA operative. With that said and his agenda clear, I have no problems with him doing what he did, some of the questions were good and he had a right to ask them. But I think it's only right to point out people's true agenda for doing things like this so he does not receive the credibility a normal CIA veteran only seeking the truth would.

Lemur

05-11-2006, 17:23

I was amazed that none of the MSM reports bothered to mention that Rumsfeld had, in fact, said everything the man accused him of saying. ABC just called it a "spirited debate," which was laughable. Rummy had lied before, and he was lying again. And it's all on record. Ye god, our media are spineless jellyfish.

Hurin_Rules

05-11-2006, 17:50

[In another thread (Rumsfeld gets bashed), I pointed out the links to websites that showed Rumsfeld was flat out lying in this exchange. I'm reproducing that post here:]

CNN's 360 With Anderson Cooper just ran a great piece on this, when the former CIA officer confronts Rumsfeld. There are some great moments. At one point, Rumsfeld denies he ever said the evidence of Zarqawi's links to Saddam Hussein were 'bulletproof', but CNN then shows Rumsfeld saying precisely that.

For those of you who can't watch, the former CIA officer catches Rumsfeld in two misleading statements, gives him a question that he cannot answer, and points out Rumsfeld's final answer is a total non sequitur.

EDIT: for the videos and commentaries, see the links I provide a couple of posts below this one (my original links were dead).

Lemur

05-11-2006, 19:27

Hurin, your links are broken.

BHCWarman88

05-11-2006, 19:27

I saw that,I think it was etiher on CNN or ABC..

CIA vet just PWNT Rummy

Byzantine Prince

05-11-2006, 19:37

And this is the liberal media people constantly complain about? I don't get it. Real journalists would have jumped all over this.

Hurin_Rules

05-11-2006, 19:37

Hurin, your links are broken.

Thanks for letting me know. Until I can reestablish them, this link provides links to the video, links to video and transcripts of Rumsfeld saying exactly what he just denied he had said, and transcripts of discussions afterwards (including the CIA operative's interview on CNN):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060505&articleId=2396

Rumsfeld flat out lied-- flat out lied, my friends-- and it's all caught on tape.

Xiahou

05-11-2006, 21:22

I liked the part where Rumsfeld talked about the troops wearing chemical suits. :2thumbsup:

Aurelian

05-11-2006, 21:35

Hello all. Back on line I am.

Just wanted to add the following bit to the conversation. Ray McGovern wrote a piece on his run-in with Rumsfeld earlier this week. The link is below if you want to read the whole thing, but I thought the following bit was interesting about the media response:

As soon as the event was over, CNN asked me for my sources, which I was happy to share. The CNN folks seemed a bit surprised that they all checked out. To their credit, they overcame the more customary “McGovern said this, but Rumsfeld said that”—and the dismissive “well, we’ll have to leave it there”—kind of treatment. In Rumsfeldian parlance, what I had said turned out to be “known knowns,” even though he provided an altered version on Thursday of his “we know where they are.” Better still, in its coverage, CNN quoted what Rumsfeld had said in 2003.

That evening a friend emailed me about a call she got from a close associate in “upper management at CNN” to ask about me. She quoted the CNN manager: “We checked and double-checked everything this guy had to say and he was 100 percent accurate.” He then asked if those protesting the war “were getting organized or something.” She responded, “Indeed we are and have been for some time, and it’s about time the mainstream media caught up.”

With the exception of CNN—and MSNBC which also did its homework and displayed the tangled web woven by the normally articulate defense secretary—the other networks generally limited their coverage to the “he-said-but-he-said” coverage more typical of what passes for journalism these days. Even CNN found it de rigueur to put neocon ideologue Frank Gaffney on with me for Wolf Blitzer. Gaffney is well to the right of Rumsfeld, so I should not have been surprised to hear Gaffney take the line that the U.S. may still find evidence of ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Hope springs eternal.

And there were more subliminal messages. In some press reports I was described as a “Rumsfeld critic” and “heckler” who was, heavens, “rude to Rumsfeld.” Other accounts referred to my “alleged” service with the CIA, which prompted my wife to question—I think in jest—what I was really doing for those 27 years. I believe I was able to convince her without her performing additional fact checking. LINK (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/05/08/my_meeting_with_rumsfeld.php)

It's pretty sad that the people who work at the premier news organizations are so generally clueless (at this late stage in the game) that they actually seem surprised by the things that McGovern had to say. I mean, where have they been for the last few years? I guess it just goes to show that you can be a corporate news-reader without being an actual journalist who wants to, you know, investigate things.

KafirChobee

05-12-2006, 04:02

This guy also believes Bush is actively planning another "sept 11" against the United States. He is a member of an org calling for his impeachment.

I think it should be made clear in situations like these that this man is far from an unbiased CIA operative. With that said and his agenda clear, I have no problems with him doing what he did, some of the questions were good and he had a right to ask them. But I think it's only right to point out people's true agenda for doing things like this so he does not receive the credibility a normal CIA veteran only seeking the truth would.

Say what? Where do you get yor news? One source - Rush (the druggy) Limbaugh and FIX (er, I mean fox)?

Sorry, but even "The Daily Show" got this one right.

Lemur

05-12-2006, 04:06

It's a good thing Porter Goss is there to weed out the liberals infecting the CIA. Oh, wait, Porter got the boot ...

Xiahou

05-12-2006, 05:02

It's a good thing Porter Goss is there to weed out the liberals infecting the CIA. Oh, wait, Porter got the boot ...
That was basically a power-play between Negroponte and Goss- Goss lost. I hope Im wrong, but I think that was probably unfortunate. :shrug:

Lemur

05-12-2006, 14:08

Xihaou, that's one of three hypotheses I've heard rolling around. Why do you put it foreward as though it were the only one? Just curious.

Xiahou

05-12-2006, 19:01

Because it's the only one that makes sense, imo. The NID (Negroponte) is trying to consolidate power in his office and Goss seemed to think that the NID was essentially an uneccessary new layer of beaurocracy to impede his reform work. Obviously, the administration sided with Negroponte and Goss is being replaced with someone they know will play ball.

Personally, I thought Goss seemed very serious about reforming the CIA and Im worried that his loss will hurt those reforms- let's hope Im wrong on that. :shrug:

Lemur

05-12-2006, 19:11

Hurin_Rules

05-12-2006, 19:47

The speculation is indeed interesting, but does anyone else feel the need to respond to the fact that the Secretary of Defense just flat-out lied?

Lemur

05-12-2006, 20:23

Nope, I don't think anybody's surprised by that. People in the center and on the left knew the man was a liar already, and people on the right have other axes to grind. Besides, the ubercons are transferring their warm and fuzzies away from the Bush administration. Not sure where they're taking their love, however.

Tribesman

05-12-2006, 20:48

does anyone else feel the need to respond to the fact that the Secretary of Defense just flat-out lied?
Why , is there a need ?

Xiahou

05-12-2006, 21:17

You seem awfully sure of yourself there, Xihaou. If I were you, I'd leave myself some wiggle room. There's things a'brewing that point toward another explanation. (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20060512-0906-foggo.html) You know the one I mean.
What does that have to do with Goss? It hasnt even been implied that he was in any way involved- the story you linked doesnt even mention him. Have you ever known a politician to resign before a scandal was staring them in the face? I'd say the explanation you seem to be leaning to is a heckuva lot shakier than mine.

Negroponte became intelligence czar last year in a job created by Congress when it overhauled the nation's intelligence agencies in response to their failure to prevent the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Negroponte's role as the government's senior coordinator overseeing a web of intelligence agencies diminished Goss's job.

Goss was stripped of the title of director of central intelligence, which had been held by his predecessors in addition to the title of CIA director, and many of the duties were taken over by Negroponte. But Negroponte, a career ambassador whose last two posts were at the United Nations and in Iraq, has been under pressure from Congress in recent weeks to demonstrate that he is in charge of the intelligence community and able to make tough decisions.

Goss and Negroponte had been friends for years and were fraternity brothers at Yale, where they graduated in 1960. But turf battles erupted as Negroponte's operation grew and Goss was embattled within his own agency, where some officers viewed him as staunchly partisan and politically weak.link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/05/AR2006050500937.html)

When Negroponte took office in April 2005, the veteran diplomat moved quickly to exert his authority over the CIA. He took over the job of giving President Bush his daily intelligence briefing, a task that once allowed CIA directors to bond with the presidents they served. He took a central role in briefing Congress on intelligence issues. He transferred some CIA officers to new joint intelligence centers. And when it appeared that Goss was not fully on board, officials said, Negroponte and his deputy, Air Force Gen. Michael V. Hayden, quietly complained to the White House — apparently contributing to Goss' decision to resign Friday.link (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ciaassess6may06,0,1094951.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Lemur

05-12-2006, 21:25

I'm going to hold out hope for the strippers and poker parties. Much more colorful and fun. Besides, your having such an air of certainty exponentially increases your chances of being wrong.

Tribesman

05-12-2006, 21:45

I'm going to hold out hope for the strippers and poker parties.
What do you mean ?
That he didn't say he hadn't been to them , he only said he didn't attend them as a CIA director .:inquisitive:

Divinus Arma

05-12-2006, 22:20

The perception of who gets owned is based upon the viewer's perception of the reasoning for the Iraq campaign in the Global War on Terrorism.

A supporter for the administration sees this: The entire world thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein successfully bluffed in order to appear strong and retain power in the region.

An opponent of the administration believes this: The Bush team fabricated intelligence and manipulated foreign government sources of intelligence in order to invade Iraq for oil and for George W. Bush's personal family agenda.

Thus, a supporter sees an idiotic attack on Rumsfield, and Rumsfield respectfully giving the individual an opportunity to present his views so that he could answer them. A supporter also sees that Rumsfield is a human being and is allowed to take a moment to think of the best response.

Alternatively, an opponent sees a bumbling Rumsfield, unable to answer when he is presented with the truth.

Lemur

05-12-2006, 22:40

DA, no matter which way you slice and spin it, the Def. Sec. said something, denied that he said it, and denied it again when the questioner repeated back his exact words. And every little bit of it's on tape. Perhaps you would care to argue that his memory isn't what it used to be?

When you're caught in a straight-up lie, you have been pwned.

Tribesman

05-12-2006, 23:21

A supporter for the administration sees this: The entire world thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein successfully bluffed in order to appear strong and retain power in the region.

If a supporter sees that Divinus , then that person has absolutely no perception of reality at all .

Alternatively, an opponent sees a bumbling Rumsfield, unable to answer when he is presented with the truth.
The problem there is that Rummy was confronted with the truth at a news conference before the invasion (sharing the podium with an Air-Force General), he flat out lied then , and he reinforced the falseness of his claims by stating categorically that they were fact , well if you could call "and that is a ..... errr.....errr....fact" categorical .

Divinus Arma

05-12-2006, 23:24

Look! I was right! :laugh4:

Tribesman

05-12-2006, 23:37

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 00:03

Look! I was right!
Yes you were , a supporter who thinks what you stated has no perception of reality , no recollection of events , and a complete blindness when the truth is put in front of their eyes .:2thumbsup:

I mean I was right about the liberal/conservative perceptions, not that I was right about either side's reasoning. I didn't even argue that point one way or the other. Thanks for pointing out again what I already said.

https://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9595/troll1vj.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Xiahou

05-13-2006, 08:08

I mean I was right about the liberal/conservative perceptions, not that I was right about either side's reasoning. I didn't even argue that point one way or the other. Thanks for pointing out again what I already said.

https://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9595/troll1vj.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Awesome. :laugh4:

Sjakihata

05-13-2006, 13:59

Im quite sure - that in most countries (except UK and US) if a secretary lied he/she would be fired. To lie and mislead people in a democracy is so easy, that's why it should be stopped and dealt with. How do you think the next adminstration in US is going to handle potential problems? Lying - since that seem to be the standard, brilliant.

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 14:27

The liberal conspiracy theory is a complete and total fabrication of leftist propagandists who wish to destroy Republican credibility in order to regain power. It relies on the ignorance and gullibility of the general public, preying on the worst failings of American and international character.

Inidividuals within our popcorn instant-gratification society fail to educate themselves to understand the complexities of the international situation that we are faced with as the only remaining superpower. The American people, when at their worst, are lazy and selfish, but not evil. They are fed with a diet of Keefer Sutherland on 24, easy lawsuits that promise instant riches, and a parental government that promises to care for them so they need not care for themselves. America suffers from a cancerous subculture of government reliance and individual unaccountability, where the blame is always on anyone but the individual. The victim society, where everyone is owed something by someone or some entity more empowered than themselves.

The values of the greatest generation are dead. The new America is a slave to entitlement.

But I will never stop believing in the values that this country was founded on. I am an American, and by God, the traditional values of this country still matter in the context of history.

Sjakihata

05-13-2006, 14:41

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 15:20

Does this pragmatistic exposition excuse lies, in your opinion Divinus Arma?

As I said before,

A supporter for the administration sees this: The entire world thought that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein successfully bluffed in order to appear strong and retain power in the region.

An opponent of the administration believes this: The Bush team fabricated intelligence and manipulated foreign government sources of intelligence in order to invade Iraq for oil and for George W. Bush's personal family agenda.

And, in my opinion:

The liberal conspiracy theory is a complete and total fabrication of leftist propagandists who wish to destroy Republican credibility in order to regain power. It relies on the ignorance and gullibility of the general public, preying on the worst failings of American and international character.

Inidividuals within our popcorn instant-gratification society fail to educate themselves to understand the complexities of the international situation that we are faced with as the only remaining superpower.

To sum, the theories about "lies" are nothing more than conjecture to satisfy the anger of the leftists who despise the foreign policy of the current administration. It is a convienent methodology to rally the gullible, the leftist extremists, and our international competitors.

Tribesman

05-13-2006, 15:56

The liberal conspiracy theory is a complete and total fabrication of leftist propagandists who wish to destroy Republican credibility in order to regain power.
Slight problem there Divinus , the Republicans dont have much in the way of credibility do they . And it wasn't a liberal conspiracy that destroyed any credibility , it was the republicans themselves .
It relies on the ignorance and gullibility of the general public
Now then , you are definately talking about the republicans and their lies there aren't you :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Inidividuals within our popcorn instant-gratification society fail to educate themselves to understand the complexities of the international situation that we are faced with as the only remaining superpower.
In the context in which you are trying to use it .....Bollox .
Forget the conspiracy theories Divinus , you bought a lemon because the vendor told you it was a pineapple , half the world was either telling you it was a lemon or that it wasn't a pinapple , but you chose to ignore them because you were gullible enough to believe the vendor .
Now when the whole world can see that it was a lemon , and even the vendor says it is a lemon some idiots are still trying to insist it was a pinapple .
And in this case you have Rummy saying that he never called it a pinapple at all in the hope that the instant gratification society have a really bad memory .

Sjakihata

05-13-2006, 16:26

To sum, the theories about "lies" are nothing more than conjecture to satisfy the anger of the leftists who despise the foreign policy of the current administration. It is a convienent methodology to rally the gullible, the leftist extremists, and our international competitors.

Im not speaking about particulars, Im thinking in generalities, is it okay to lie?

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 16:31

Tribesman, You are entitled to your point of view. Nobody was lied to.

The intelligence of the world was wrong. Our intelligence was wrong. Saddam bluffed, and we bought it.

Others would wait forever, just as they would wait for Iran to get nukes now. In the opinion of some, the entire world should have nukes and VX and whatever else and see no harm in that.

I would prefer a world with less nukes and WMDs in it, since proliferation can only contribute to global instability with extra-national terrorists in control of these weapons.

Sjak, you are going to have to be a tad more specific than that. When I have a family who was just involved in a terrible accident and their child is dead in the front seat, they ask me, "Is little Johnny okay"? At that moment, to control the scene and finish my investigation, I must lie. When I have a criminal who has committed a crime and I need information from him, I am going to lie if necessary to get the truth from him. In certain circumstances, lieing is the lesser of two evils, but generally, it is not acceptable.

Sjakihata

05-13-2006, 17:15

Sjak, you are going to have to be a tad more specific than that. When I have a family who was just involved in a terrible accident and their child is dead in the front seat, they ask me, "Is little Johnny okay"? At that moment, to control the scene and finish my investigation, I must lie. When I have a criminal who has committed a crime and I need information from him, I am going to lie if necessary to get the truth from him. In certain circumstances, lieing is the lesser of two evils, but generally, it is not acceptable.

Lying certainly is not a lesser evil. It depends on how you view it (deontological / utilitarian). I just wanted to know if you thought it okay to lie - and you have answered that you do. That's all. You're not easy to get an answer from - sometimes try being a little less paranoid ;)

Lemur

05-13-2006, 18:09

The liberal conspiracy theory is a complete and total fabrication of leftist propagandists who wish to destroy Republican credibility in order to regain power.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/tinfoilhat.jpg

The values of the greatest generation are dead. The new America is a slave to entitlement.

But I will never stop believing in the values that this country was founded on. I am an American, and by God, the traditional values of this country still matter in the context of history.
See my sig for my response. Surrounded by the impure and entitled, are you?

Tribesman

05-13-2006, 18:37

Nobody was lied to.

Rubbish Divinus , pure garbage .
Donald was challenged prior to the invasion over the accuracy of the claims he had just made at a press conference .
The reply...
"we know he has them..." hmmmmmm ,but you didn't did you donald , so that is not true.
"we know where they are ....." also not true donald .
"and that is a FACT" ....now that really clinches it , neither part of the previous portion of statement were true , and to finish by claiming that the untrue bits were factual makes it a complete undeniable lie .
You do know what a lie is don't you ?

The intelligence of the world was wrong.

Nope , there was lots of intelligence around the world , the administration chose which intelligence it wanted to believe , even after other countries and agencies had rubbished the information .
Our intelligence was wrong.
Nope , the intelligence that they put forward to the public to make their case was wrong .
Saddam bluffed
Errrrrr....hold on , he said he didn't have WMDs and links to Al-Qaida , how is that a bluff ?
and we bought it.

You certainly did .:oops:

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 20:03

https://img89.imageshack.us/img89/8630/merrygoround4fv.jpg (https://imageshack.us)

neither part of the previous portion of statement were true , and to finish by claiming that the untrue bits were factual makes it a complete undeniable lie .
You do know what a lie is don't you ?

Donald Rumsfield, Colin Powell, and our intelligence agencies thought they had information that was solid. You could argue that we went to war over merely a preponderance of the evidence, and your argument on the ethics of initiating war in such a case would have merit. But to say that we were purposely lied to is a stretch of the imagination; your argument is conjecture at best and accusational at worst.

rory_20_uk

05-13-2006, 21:18

Whereas war was declared on the basis of faulty intelligence at best and a lie at worst.

Since the default position should be peace the evidence should be overwhelming and watertight, not circumstantial and inaccurate.

It is an accusation, one that so far has only thrown light on firther errors as the "facts" are examined.

~:smoking:

Tribesman

05-13-2006, 21:45

Donald Rumsfield, Colin Powell, and our intelligence agencies thought they had information that was solid.
So Donald said "this evidence is pretty solid in my opinion" .
Nope , he said this is the truth and that is a fact .
Big difference there Divinus .
He left no doubt , no question that what he was saying was the damn truth and you had better believe it because he was telling you thats the way it was .
But he knew there were serious questions about the accuracy of what he was presenting as the truth , that makes it a lie .
Not a little mistake , not a slip of the tongue , not a slight embellishment , an outright lie .
Now he could have said "we have pretty good information that Saddam has WMDs , we have some evidence that may show us where they are , and on balance it appears we have a pretty good case"
Though of course then someone may have said "how firm is this evidence that you are making your case with ?" .
Which is funny really because it was a question like that that caused him to give the reply that he actually did .
"We knowhe has them ,we know where they are , and that is a ...a....fact"
There you go 3 lies in bold in case you didn't know what they were .

But to say that we were purposely lied to is a stretch of the imagination;
FFS Divinus :wall: this topic is about Rummy lying about lying . How often do you have to see somone lying before you understand that they are a liar , he is a politician after all , do you expect him to be honest ?

your argument is conjecture at best
Conjecture ???????
We think he may have them , we think we might know where they might be if our previous thinking does in fact turn out to be correct , and it is a pretty good guess that the information may be accurate .
Try selling a war with that .:no:

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 22:13

Tribesman, I think rory_20_uk puts it best:

Whereas war was declared on the basis of faulty intelligence at best and a lie at worst.

Since the default position should be peace the evidence should be overwhelming and watertight, not circumstantial and inaccurate.

It is an accusation, one that so far has only thrown light on firther errors as the "facts" are examined.

And I completely agree with any type of investigation into pre-war intelligence gathering. You may believe that we were lied to, but that does not mean that you are correct. I may believe that intelligence was faulty, but that does not mean that I am correct.

Either way, we should ensure that this does not happen again in the future because even a mere preponderance of the evidence is insufficient justification for armed conflict.

However, we should also admit that 100% intelligence may never exist in any scenario, but we should be prepared to act when reasonable cause for preventative action exists.

We cannot be strictly reactive when dealing with WMD-armed extranational groups. Or would you disgaree with that, too?

Tribesman

05-13-2006, 22:40

Divinus Arma

05-13-2006, 23:05

You may believe that we were lied to, but that does not mean that you are correct.
Divinus , in the instance I have put forward , how the hell can you have any doubt that he lied ?
He didn't know , he didn't know , and it wasn't a fact .
Outright lies , no two ways about it .

There really is no point in continuing this. I have already put forward my views, and if you cannot see through my eyes then that is your problem, not mine.

We all have one of two objects in a debate like like: Either (a) force our views on somebody else or (b) articulate our views so they can be merely understood by the other party while understanding the views of the other party. I have no desire to force my views on you, and you have no desire to understand my point of view. You only desire to force your views on me, and you will be unsuccessful until you can at least understand my point of view.

I have indicated that I understand your point of view, though I disagree with it. I have already explained my conclusions. If you really care "how the hell I can have any doubt that he lied", I'll continue this. But I don't think you do care. I think you are frustrated that I do not agree with you and you are thrashing about trying to enforce your views upon me.

But such is usually the nature of your intent in virtually every argument in the backroom. Forcing your views on others. But nobody listens to you because it is all just ranting and raving with no respect for the views of the other person. When somebody writes something that you disagree with, you do this: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: And then deride them as a fool without attempting to outline facts in a respectful manner.

Don't take this as a flame, because it is not intended to be. I am merely explaining why debating you is like riding a merry-go-round.

Hurin_Rules

05-14-2006, 00:06

Divinus Arma

05-14-2006, 00:17

DA:

Are you asserting, then, that Rumsfeld did not lie in the exchange with the former CIA agent-- specifically, when Rumsfeld denied he had ever said he 'knew' where the WMDs were and that the evidence was 'bulletproof'?

He said he knew where they were. Where suspect sites were. This is nitpicking of terminology used. I don't expect him to remember his exact words at previous press conferences on the spot right there. And when the "retired CIA agent" or whomever that fella is (the video doesn't say) challenges him saying "those were your words", Rumsfield has to take a second because somebody is putting words in his mouth and he can't remember what the hell he said.

If some random person yells out "those were your words", are you gonna just take that at face value if you can't remember? Give me a break.

I understand your point of view, and as I said, one's attitude towards the administration is going to influence your perception of this video. Where I would give a human being a break to figure something out when under challenge, you are ready to crucify the man at the slightest hesitation.

You're entitled to your opinion, I simply disagree.

Edit: I think Rumsfield lays it out just fine. He believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, as did Powell, as did American intelligence, as did british intelligence, as did russian intelligence, etc. And as he explains in the very beginning, it appears that we were wrong.

Byzantine Prince

05-14-2006, 00:18

you do this: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: And then deride them as a fool without attempting to outline facts in a respectful manner.
But he did unrespectfully outline the facts. So I am still to understand your point because it doesn't seem to make much sense to me mind. I hold you suspect of political hackery of the highest degree. :no:

I think Rumsfield lays it out just fine. He believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, as did Powell, as did American intelligence, as did british intelligence, as did russian intelligence, etc. And as he explains in the very beginning, it appears that we were wrong.
*SELECTIVE INFORMATION GATHERING*
Otherwise known as BS, because there is false information everywhere that has to be considered by the CIA.

Divinus Arma

05-14-2006, 00:37

But he did unrespectfully outline the facts. So I am still to understand your point because it doesn't seem to make much sense to me mind. I hold you suspect of political hackery of the highest degree. :no:

Jeeze. You guys are ruthless. I'll keep playing. Why? Because I am going to go off of facts, not conjecture.

Guys, if there was real information that showed "we were lied to" and that the whole lead up was a fabrication, I would be right there with you calling for impeachment and so forth. Political hackery? I ditched the President when he abandoned me on the immigration issue.

This whole nonsense about lies, etc is a conspiratorial charge based on assumptions.

What the hell do we have to gain? Think about it! Oil? Hell, we can't even get the insurgents to stop blowing up the oil! And besides, what do we with the oil when some does come out of Iraq? WE BUY IT AT MARKET PRICES!

So let's think about this for a sec, conspiracy theorists. A reduction in oil supply coupled with an increase in demand results in higher prices, correct? Well, why would we want to increase foreign oil supply that directly contributes to decreased prices and decreased profits for domestic companies?

Domestic companies have the most to gain when foreign owned sources of oil are diminshed, that way they can increase prices.

So if it ain't the oil, then what is it? The personal family agenda? Clinton himself said the Saddam was a growing threat and one that should be dealt with. He was just too pussy to do anything that messed with his poll numbers. Hard choices are unpopular. Social security: Hard choices. Illegal Immigration: Hard Choices. Energy independance: Hard Choices. Medical coverage: Hard Choices. National Security: Hard Choices.

You know why Clinton had such a successful economy during his tour? It was because of the surge in information and communication technology that directly contributed to huge growth in productivity! Clinton did nothing but preside over the period of time where the internet first became popularized and entered the mainstream. The efficieny of global instant communication at reduced costs has been huge, and he did nothing to help or hurt it. He simply existed.

So everything took a dump with the combination of the tech crash of 2000 and 9/11/2001. But look at our economy. It powers ahead regardless.

My point is this: President Bush has, at the very least, had the balls to make tough choices and do what he thinks is right. Do I agree with him? No. And right now only 29% of the population does.

But lies and conspiracy theories? It's nuts! Completely ludicrous! It is a fantasy world of hate towards a poltical party that people despise because they refuse to give you handouts and tell you how wonderful you are when you fail.

Byzantine Prince

05-14-2006, 00:48

What the hell do we have to gain?
You(as in the public)? Nothing at all.

So if it ain't the oil, then what is it?
Let's see, how about military contracts. You know, the lobbying and the billions of dollars spent in strengthening the military arsenal. The bullets the bombs, all from the hands of the american taxpayer. I think your idea of politics might be a little too idealistic.

My point is this: President Bush has, at the very least, had the balls to make tough choices and do what he thinks is right.
Well he IS the DECIDER. :laugh4:

But seriously look at the debt and the unchecked spending maing. It's higher than any other president in the history of the US,

But lies and conspiracy theories? It's nuts! Completely ludicrous! It is a fantasy world of hate towards a poltical party that people despise because they refuse to give you handouts and tell you how wonderful you are when you fail.
Actually your beloved party has no problem giving hand-outs to the richest in America with their tax bill. But please don't let the FACTS concern you.

Divinus Arma

05-14-2006, 01:04

Let's see, how about military contracts. You know, the lobbying and the billions of dollars spent in strengthening the military arsenal. The bullets the bombs, all from the hands of the american taxpayer. I think your idea of politics might be a little too idealistic.

Sure. And haliburton and all the other big powerful corporations, right? I have no problem with an investigation. Investigate away! Let's see some real info, aside from convenient guesswork.

But seriously look at the debt and the unchecked spending maing. It's higher than any other president in the history of the US,

Agreed. No child left behind? Rip off deal. Medicare part b or d or whatever? Screw it. The pork spending of my congress? Where's my noose?!

Actually your beloved party has no problem giving hand-outs to the richest in America with their tax bill. But please don't let the FACTS concern you.

Well, I dont agree with the canadian/european socialist perception of government entitlement to tax revenue to begin with, so we can't see eye to eye on this one. Its my money. Not the governments. And people with more money don't stash it under a bed; they invest it and build businesses and create opportunities for economic growth and jobs.

Byzantine Prince

05-14-2006, 01:16

Sure. And haliburton and all the other big powerful corporations, right?
Mi-li-ta-ry contracts. As in arms companies getting huge fat business. They have special interests in Washington.

Well, I dont agree with the canadian/european socialist perception of government entitlement to tax revenue to begin with, so we can't see eye to eye on this one. Its my money. Not the governments. And people with more money don't stash it under a bed; they invest it and build businesses and create opportunities for economic growth and jobs.
Tax rates don't change from 40% to 0% when the administration goes republican, sorry to dissapoint you. If this money is yours then don't pay tax at all, but then who will pay Rumsfeld to lie? I know, I know, it's a tragedy.

Who will pay the 500,000,000 a day for the war in Iraq. The strong economy? Don't kid yourself. You pay taxes, to pay for ammo, to pay for lobbying to pay for war.

Hurin_Rules

05-14-2006, 01:34

He said he knew where they were. Where suspect sites were. This is nitpicking of terminology used. I don't expect him to remember his exact words at previous press conferences on the spot right there. And when the "retired CIA agent" or whomever that fella is (the video doesn't say) challenges him saying "those were your words", Rumsfield has to take a second because somebody is putting words in his mouth and he can't remember what the hell he said.

No, he is not putting words in his mouth-- that occurs when someone tells you something you did NOT say. Rumsfeld said precisely that he knew where the WMDS were-- not suspected sites, not possible sites, but the weapons themselves. He was asked by George Stephanopolous on "This Week with George Stephanopolous" on March 30th, 2003, if he knew where the WMDs were. Rumsfeld replied, 'We know where they are. They`re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad, and east, west, south, and north somewhat." [You can see the all the transcripts at the website I listed in post #8 in this thread, here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060505&articleId=2396 ]

Do you see any mention of 'suspect sites' there? I don't. And if you don't, then Rumsfeld was lying when he denied he said he knew where the WMDs were.

If some random person yells out "those were your words", are you gonna just take that at face value if you can't remember? Give me a break.

Somehow I'm pretty sure Rumsfeld remembers saying he knew where the WMDs were.

Edit: I think Rumsfield lays it out just fine. He believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, as did Powell, as did American intelligence, as did british intelligence, as did russian intelligence, etc. And as he explains in the very beginning, it appears that we were wrong.

Ah, but he didn't say he 'believed' there were weapons of mass destruction. He said he 'knew' there were. Recognizing the difference is significant, and far more than merely nitpicking. Rumsfeld and others presented evidence that they knew was contested as 'bulletproof'. This is the great intelligence failure that led to an unnecessary war and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (over 2,500 of them American). If you don't find the difference between knowledge and belief to be anything more than nitpicking, then God save the USA.

Divinus Arma

05-14-2006, 03:28

Well. We will just have to agree to disagree, now won't we my northern friend?

P.S. Want some wood?

Hurin_Rules

05-14-2006, 04:06

P.S. Want some wood?

No thanks. Unlike some, we Canadians can get wood whenever we want.

Xiahou

05-14-2006, 07:06

And I completely agree with any type of investigation into pre-war intelligence gathering. You may believe that we were lied to, but that does not mean that you are correct. I may believe that intelligence was faulty, but that does not mean that I am correct.
Thing is, we've already had several... like the one by the Senate Intel committee. It made lots of recommendations, but guess what? It found no lies about intel on the part of the administration.

I really cant believe that we're rehashing the run-up to war again... the vote to use force was a bipartisan one with Democrats trying to outdo each other by showing how tough on national security they were. Had the whole affair been over in 6 months, they'd still be rah-rahing it. However, when the insurgency reared its head and things became difficult the sad political opportunists began sensing a chance to score points. Many of the ones now saying Bush lied and misled are on record before he even took office as declaring the dangers of Saddam and his WMDs.

Frankly, I think its pathetic that they only support a war so long as it's politically advantageous.. What message does this send to our enemies? That we'll only fight an "easy" battle? Just stick in there and cause some casualties and our resolve falls apart. These politicians voted for this war and now they're doing almost anything they can to undermine it. We're there now- by their votes and with the overwhelming support of the American people at the time -if they think they have a better idea to win, let's hear it. But its too late for them to say we never should have gone- they had that chance and chose war.

Tribesman

05-14-2006, 08:40

Jeeze. You guys are ruthless. I'll keep playing. Why? Because I am going to go off of facts, not conjecture.

Well that is where you fail Divinus, because your facts are not facts at all .
Rummy could have made a statement that was true , but he chose to use words which were absolute , specific and without any scope for alternative interpretation . By using the words he did he made the statements false , false as in lies .
He chose to lie because someone questioned his previous statement which was not quite so absolute , specific and without scope for alternative interpretation . So that makes it a deliberate lie for the purpose of stopping any question as to what his previous statement had contained .

Talking of facts and conjecture..... He believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, as did Powell, as did American intelligence, as did british intelligence, as did russian intelligence, etc.
....that is not factual is it ?
American Intelligence thought that there might be , British intelligence thought that there might be , Russian intelligence thought there was very little evidence to support the claims being made .
On top of which when Putin talked about the "evidence" put forward by Powell he said there was no evidence . No evidence means that what was put forward was conjecture .
Now then , Putin was not alone at that meeeting was he ? So what does that make of your ..."etc" ? and now what does Powell have to say about the "evidence" that he put forward ?

Hurin_Rules

05-14-2006, 22:03

Thing is, we've already had several... like the one by the Senate Intel committee. It made lots of recommendations, but guess what? It found no lies about intel on the part of the administration.

Not that red herring again! You know very well (or you should) that the intel committee was specifically forbidden from considering the question of how the goverment used the intelligence.

rotorgun

05-15-2006, 02:38

Let me just wade in here with just one question for all the pro-Rumsfeld people involved in this thread. Would you want to risk your skin, or the skin of your beloved teenage son, or the life of any patriotic person serving their country in a war, where real people are really killed, maimed and emotionally scarred, unless you were given 100% rock solid reasons for doing so? Any man who has the power of life and death over me had better have the very best integrity when he orders me to my possible death. There is no room for lies when the bullets are flying.

The man knew, hell they all knew, and they all lied. It is as plain as the nose on my French/American face that they did so, because they knew that their plan reeked from the smell of oil profits. I hope that everyone who thinks that they had such a great plan can have an opportunity to personally experience the operational end of Operation Iraqi Freedom. It will make a believer out of them. Talk about riding a merry-go-round. We should know, we'll be sending deployments there now for the next 30 years. That is a sobering thought. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, ad infitum, all have a nice party celebrating all of their wonderful oil profit windfalls. Will their grandchildren be going to the Persian Gulf? I doubt it, but ours (the tax paying middle class) most certainly will be. I can't wait for their sequel, Operation Iranian Mushroom Cloud. Do you have a ticket yet?

Xiahou

05-15-2006, 03:33

Not that red herring again! You know very well (or you should) that the intel committee was specifically forbidden from considering the question of how the goverment used the intelligence.
Forbidden by who? No one is going to "forbid" the Senate from investigating whatever it sets it's mind to.

Hurin_Rules

05-15-2006, 03:56

Forbidden by who? No one is going to "forbid" the Senate from investigating whatever it sets it's mind to.

By the Republicans who control the committee. Although they agreed that after phase I of the report was released (I am assuming this is the report to which you referred in your earlier post, but in fact it is only the first half of the report), they have been stalling for over a year now in begining phase II of the investigation, which would deal with how the intelligence was used.

You can read all about it here (specifically the last part, 'Phase two of the investigation,' which deals with all of this and also lists the most recent developments):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

So, to reiterate: there has never been an independent report on how the intelligence was used, and it doesn't look like there is going to be until Democrats regain the Senate.

To keep parroting the Republican line that the committee found no evidence of lies, subterfuge or misleading statements is itself a very misleading statement. Only phase I of the report has been released; phase II, which will deal with how the intelligence was used, has not yet been completed-- or even started, apparently.

Divinus Arma

05-15-2006, 04:36

Xiahou

05-15-2006, 05:38

To keep parroting the Republican line that the committee found no evidence of lies, subterfuge or misleading statements is itself a very misleading statement. Only phase I of the report has been released; phase II, which will deal with how the intelligence was used, has not yet been completed-- or even started, apparently.
I think you need to go back and read what the report says. Under various sections marked "Conclusions" (oddly enough), the committee concludes that many of the intel assessments are wrong- but there was also no evidence of pressure being applied to arrive at a certain assessment.

The "ethereal" phase2 you speak of is supposed to consider whether or not the administration's statements were supported by the intelligence info. Now that the committee has already found that the NIE conclusions that Iraq was seeking WMDs, ect were based on bad intelligence and not political pressure. I don't think we need the Senate to sort this one out. Tell me, what administration claims do you think were made that were not supported by the NIE?

This might help you- it covers many of the claims made by the pre-war NIE.

Iraq's WMD Programs: Culling Hard Facts from Soft Myths (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/NIC%20Speeches%20-%20Iraq's%20WMD%20Programs.htm) -
A Message from Stuart A. Cohen
Vice Chairman, National Intelligence Council

Hurin_Rules

05-15-2006, 06:03

I think you need to go back and read what the report says. Under various sections marked "Conclusions" (oddly enough), the committee concludes that many of the intel assessments are wrong- but there was also no evidence of pressure being applied to arrive at a certain assessment.

When did I say pressure was applied? That issue has been resolved. We are now talking about how the evidence was used, politically.

The "ethereal" phase2 you speak of is supposed to consider whether or not the administration's statements were supported by the intelligence info. Now that the committee has already found that the NIE conclusions that Iraq was seeking WMDs, ect were based on bad intelligence and not political pressure. I don't think we need the Senate to sort this one out. Tell me, what administration claims do you think were made that were not supported by the NIE?

Are you serious? The infamous 'sixteen words', the alleged mobile weapons labs, the aluminum tubes, the balsa wood 'chemical weapons drone'... the list is virtually endless.

Why, exactly, don't you think the Senate needs to sort this out? Aside from the fact that they had an agreement with the Democrats to do so, don't you think you might want to look a bit deeper into the greatest intelligence failure in US history?

I will reiterate what I said, because again you don't seem to be getting it: phase I of the report did not address the question of how the intelligence was used.

Perhaps you can clarify your argument for me here, because you seem to be arguing a couple of different things at once. Are you saying that the report already settled the issue of how the intelligence was used, or are you saying we don't need to find that out? Which is it?

Xiahou

05-15-2006, 06:20

Are you serious? The infamous 'sixteen words', the alleged mobile weapons labs, the aluminum tubes, the balsa wood 'chemical weapons drone'... the list is virtually endless.Again, if you look at the report they conclude that the notion that Iraq had tried to aquire uranium from Africa was indeed a reasonable one based on the Intelligence in hand. What's your issue with how that was used? As to the others, I think it was widely acknowledged that the materials were dual use, but based on what we knew of Hussein it was assumed his intentions were nefarious. Again, this was information recieved in the NIE- how was it misused?

Perhaps you can clarify your argument for me here, because you seem to be arguing a couple of different things at once. Are you saying that the report already settled the issue of how the intelligence was used, or are you saying we don't need to find that out? Which is it?Im wondering what you think remains to be settled. The anti-war arguments have evolved from 'Bush lied', to 'they pressured analysts', to apparently now he 'misused intelligence'. What is your claim? That administration statements were not backed by intelligence? If not, what do you mean by misuse?

Hurin_Rules

05-16-2006, 05:36

Again, if you look at the report they conclude that the notion that Iraq had tried to aquire uranium from Africa was indeed a reasonable one based on the Intelligence in hand. What's your issue with how that was used?

It is a far cry from a notion being a 'reasonable' supposition to a fact. If not, why then were the sixteen words removed from earlier speeches? And how did they find their way into the later ones when they'd already been debunked? In fact, we now know that at the time of Bush's state of the union speech, they already had the report that said the story about yellow cake was probably crap. And yet they kept reporting it for another year--and not as supposition but as fact. You're really defending this?

As to the others, I think it was widely acknowledged that the materials were dual use, but based on what we knew of Hussein it was assumed his intentions were nefarious. Again, this was information recieved in the NIE- how was it misused?

It was not at all 'widely acknowledged that the materials were dual use'. In fact, the intelligence community had grave doubts about the tubes and especially the 'mobile weapons labs', but none of these doubts made it into Powell and Bush's speeches.

Im wondering what you think remains to be settled. The anti-war arguments have evolved from 'Bush lied', to 'they pressured analysts', to apparently now he 'misused intelligence'. What is your claim? That administration statements were not backed by intelligence? If not, what do you mean by misuse?

Well that's pretty rich. The arguments are the same as they were, in stark contrast to the administration's arguments for war in Iraq, which have made the even more remarkable evolution from 'Saddam has WMDs' and 'Saddam has 'bulletproof' links to al Qaeda' to 'the world is better off with Saddam gone' (just forget about the WMDs and links to al Qaeda please).

The intelligence was misused in the following way: matters that were under contention were presented as irrefutable fact. None of the doubts the analysts had about the evidence made it into the president's and Powell's speeches, but every half-cocked speculation that suggested links to al Qaeda or WMDs were trumpeted from on high.

And we've never yet had a single investigation looking into how this occured.