Rumsfeld caught lying (i know, it's nothing new, but i thought you should know)

[mhendo]

Sorry if there’s already a thread on this subject. I searched and didn’t find one, so i’m assuming there isn’t.

So, the Bush administration is currently in spin control mode over the whole issue of WMDs in Iraq, and the question of whether Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat to the United States and the rest of the world. Who knows? Maybe they’ll actually stumble across some WMDs one of these days, but at the moment the whole “imminent threat” argument is looking pretty thin.

But the presence or absence of WMDs is not really what this thread is about. Not content with having been fabricating reasons for going to war in the first place, Donald Rumsfeld would now have us believe that neither he nor President Bush ever even used the term “imminent threat” in referring to Saddam Hussein.

Luckily, the folks on “Face the Nation” were prepared for such a barefaced lie.

[PhiloVance]

Politican caught lying.
News at 11.

:rolleyes:

[vibrotronica]

Is that Thomas Friedman of the Times who drops the hammer on the lying sack of shit?

[GaWd]

It’s all “folklore”, mhendo…

Just Democratic detractors. rummy was trying to be accurate, and…errr…umm…well…I never said imminent or immediate.

You’re all so Anti-American! The terrorists have won!

Sheesh.

He’s a very, verrrry bad liar.

Sam

[Revtim]

Brutal. I almost feel sorry for the guy being nailed like that.

Ok, not really. Not even close.
I wonder, would it be legal for Kerry to use that footage in an ad, if he got permission from 'Face The Nation?" Rummy couldn’t stop it, could he?

[GorillaMan]

OOooooohhhhhh, the “Oh FUCK” expression on his face gives me a warm glow all over

[mhendo]

@vibrotronica

Is that Thomas Friedman of the Times who drops the hammer on the lying sack of shit?

Indeed it is.

If you’re interested, you can read the whole transcript here. (Warning: pdf document).

There is also an interesting exchange on the issue of the armed forces’ “stop loss” policy.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

That is glorious. Gee-lorious.

It’s frustrating to konw that someone is lying, to watch them dance little evil-leprechaun jigs around the truth, and not being able to catch them at it, and have them call YOU a liar for doubting them.

God, it’s satisfying to see the sonofabitch get his comeuppance.

Daniel

[Thaumaturge]

This is slightly off-topic, but it reminds me of a bumpersticker I saw today:

No one died when Clinton lied.

[rjung]

The nice thing about modern technology is that all the bullshit and nonsense from this Administration gets captured for handy-dandy uses in situations like this.

Someone ought to assemble all of this into a book.

[Aldebaran]

In my opinion there are 2 ways he can handle that situation:

1. claim memory loss due to progressing dementing.
   This point can be used to explain a lot.
   a) He doesn’t remember what he said.
   b) at the moment he said it, he didn’t know that he said it.
   c) at that same moment he didn’t remember that Intelligence Agencies from a variety of origin and location told him there was no such thing as "imminent threat "(= WMD).

2. claim he was at that very moment inspired by the Devil who spoke by his mouth in order to make people disregard his God Inspired Intentions with the Iraqi people.
   Salaam. A

[chula]

What amazes me is how bad he is at lying. Who could possibly be fooled by this? I guess if they tell enough lies, people will become confused and get tired of looking up the truth. Contradicting every one of their blatant lies is more than any of us have time to do.

[Jackmannii]

One very nice, neat, effective skewering. And lots of fun to watch.

[Sofa_King]

Damn. That is harsh. Somehow I didn’t spot those statements when I spent a lunch hour trying to nail down the President on that term.

My conclusion then was that these guys have tossed the concept of “imminent threat” straight out the window and have instead replaced it with the much more dangerous concept that if another nation merely has the ability–or just intends to gain the ability–to endanger the United States, that’s good enough reason to fuck 'em up right now.

If you want to see how completely fucked up that idea is, just imagine if every nation in the world adopted the Bush Doctrine. Which nation would be the threat most needy of “preemption”?

[bdgr]

@Revtim

Brutal. I almost feel sorry for the guy being nailed like that.

Ok, not really. Not even close.
I wonder, would it be legal for Kerry to use that footage in an ad, if he got permission from 'Face The Nation?" Rummy couldn’t stop it, could he?

Move on is gonna use it in an ad, so Kerry doesnt have to.

[Earthling]

@rjung

Someone ought to assemble all of this into a book.

Someone did.

[World_Eater]

@bdgr

Move on is gonna use it in an ad, so Kerry doesnt have to.

Fucking ssssssweet! They ought to get that picture of him and SH shaking hands in there somewhere.

[Reeder]

Wow…someone from Bushco lying.

Who’d a thunk.

:rolleyes:

[World_Eater]

@Reeder

Wow…someone from Bushco lying.

Who’d a thunk.

:rolleyes:

How’s your thread doing?

hehe

[PatriotX]

@Sofa King

My conclusion then was that these guys have tossed the concept of “imminent threat” straight out the window and have instead replaced it with the much more dangerous concept that if another nation merely has the ability–or just intends to gain the ability–to endanger the United States, that’s good enough reason to fuck 'em up right now.

If you want to see how completely fucked up that idea is, just imagine if every nation in the world adopted the Bush Doctrine. Which nation would be the threat most needy of “preemption”?

See the The National Security Strategy of the United States of America Chapter Five.

Prevent Our Enemies from Threatening Us, Our Allies, and Our Friends with Weapons of Mass Destruction

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction—weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning.

I’m sure that you have, but for the edification of those who have not.

So they haven’t “tossed the concept of “imminent threat” straight out the window,” they have “adapted” it.
The adapttion renders preventative war the same thing as pre-emption.
Iraq was not a pre-emptive war, it was a preventative war. The use of pre-emption to describe it is an example of newspeak infecting our public discourse.

From here

@SimonX

AAAAGH!!!
Don’t you fall for the newspeak too.

Pre-emption is unquestioned and undeniably legitimate. It has been recognized as just for centuries. However, an imminent threat is necessary for a war to be a pre-emptive war.
What we did to Iraq was a preventive war. Which is much different.

Here’s the gist of the letter I sent to GOP headquarters, (in my capacity as a GOP Team Leader), in response to the request that I write to my conressmen and tell them to support the Bush policy of pre-emption.
If Iraq was an imminent threat to the US then the war is not an agressive war. It is part of a long sanctioned tradition of "preemption "Upon detecting evidence that an opponent is about to attack, one beats the opponent to the punch and attacks first to blunt the impending strike."

As we all know, “For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat—most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.”

IMHO, one could make the case that the need to “adapt the concept of imminent threat” as laid out in the National Security Strategy Chapter V*, led to the actual adaptation the “concept of imminent threat,” in the national security strategy of the USA to include the threat presented by “rogue states and terrorists” and thus a change in what qualifies as preemption.
If Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US then the war may’ve been an example of a “preventive war”. Preventive war is based on the concept that war is inevitable and that it is better to fight now while the costs are low rather than later when the costs are high. It is a deliberate decision to begin a war."

*(“We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries, [“rogue states and terrorist”]”)

Here Rumsfeld defends the idea that Iraq presnted an “imminent threat” to the US

Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview With Infinity CBS Radio Nov 14, 2002

Kroft: Mr. Secretary, we’ve also, in addition to phone calls, we’ve gotten emails, and I want to read one to you. I’m the parent of an Army Reserve soldier who has already gone through his training and is on the next call up list to be deployed to the Persian Gulf area within the next few weeks, for a period of six months to two years. I’m not yet convinced that Iraq is such an imminent threat to the United States that it justifies having my son placed in harms way. If I were there in person, speaking to you, what would you say to convince me?

Rumsfeld: Well, first, we’re grateful that your son is serving, and wants to serve. And I can’t help but recognize the feelings that a parent has. What would I say to you? Well, I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11th and ask yourself this question, was the attack that took place on September 11th an imminent threat the month before, or two months before, or three months before, or six months before? When did the attack on September 11th become an imminent threat? When was it sufficiently dangerous to our country that had we known about it that we could have stepped up and stopped it and saved 3,000 lives? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month, and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the al Qaeda, and somehow the al Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 of human beings. So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something, is a tough question. But if you think about it, it’s the nexus, the connection, the relationship between terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction with terrorist networks that has changed our lives, and changed the security environment in the world. And right now in the Congress the intelligence committees in the House and the Senate are working very hard, trying to connect the dots as to who knew what before September 11th, how might it have been stopped. Our task, your task as a mother, and as a citizen, as a voter, and my task, is to try to connect the dots before something happens, not afterwards. People say, well where’s the smoking gun? Well, we don’t want to see a smoking gun from a weapon of mass destruction. We have an obligation to try to defend the people of our country and the interests we have, and that is why the president went to the United Nations and sought a resolution, and received unanimous support to try to see if we can’t get a peaceful solution to the Iraqi problem.

There is, of course, more. But I’ll spare you.