https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0ds8LlzK20
Watch the video, it's brilliant, watching Rumsfeld flounder around trying to answer this guy's questions.
Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by currywurry
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.
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.
[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).
Hurin, your links are broken.
I saw that,I think it was etiher on CNN or ABC..
CIA vet just PWNT Rummy
And this is the liberal media people constantly complain about? I don't get it. Real journalists would have jumped all over this.
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):Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=2396
Rumsfeld flat out lied-- flat out lied, my friends-- and it's all caught on tape.
I liked the part where Rumsfeld talked about the troops wearing chemical suits. :2thumbsup:
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:
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.Quote:
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
Say what? Where do you get yor news? One source - Rush (the druggy) Limbaugh and FIX (er, I mean fox)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joker85
Sorry, but even "The Daily Show" got this one right.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
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.
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:
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. You know the one I mean.
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?
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.
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 ?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
linkQuote:
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.
linkQuote:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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 .
Look! I was right! :laugh4:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
https://img103.imageshack.us/img103/9595/troll1vj.gif
Awesome. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma
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.