And right on cue, mhendoh is a fucking git. The quote attributed to Sec. Rumsfeld:
So what exactly is wrong with the Secretary’s comment? He’s saying that some have argued that threat is 5-7 years away, he is not certain, implying he thinks it might be less than that time period. So fucking what?
Is 3-5 years imminent? How about 1-3 years? 1-3 months?
You liberal gits just don’t get it. The whole point is that you don’t wait for someone like Saddam to get the freaking nuclear weapon in the first place. Or I suppose we should do nothing until one denotates on NYC or Madrid?
milroyj, you must have missed this one:
“No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
–Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002
And milroyj, predictably enough, conveniently ignores the second quote provided by Friendman, in which Rumsfeld flat out calls Hussein an “immediate threat.”
In case you don’t get it, fuckwit, this thread is not about whether or not Hussein was an imminent threat–it’s about the barefaced LIE that Rumsfeld told when he said that neither he nor the President had ever used the term “immediate threat” in relation to Hussein and Iraq.
It’s right there in the transcript, and for people like milroyj who apparently have trouble with reading polysyllabic words, it’s also in the video. Rumsfeld says that “you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase “immediate threat.” I didn’t. The president didn’t.” And then Friedman reads a quote from Rumsfeld (9/18/2002) in which the Defense Secretary says that “No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
Lies, and is caught out less than 40 seconds later.
Won’t matter, because, as the quotes in my previous posts show, Rumsfeld specifically said that neither he nor Bush had ever used the term “immediate threat,” and then Friedman demonstrates that Rumsfeld had used exactly that term.
Perhaps the confusion is my fault. I wrote “Imminent” in the OP, when i should have written “immediate.”
Rumsfeld’s quote using the word “imminent” still suggests something similar, but isn’t as damning as the second one.
Except he was an immediate threat to the security of our people, as he continued to violate the no-fly zones, putting U.S. and U.K. servicemen in danger.
But surely the President never said anything about some sort of immediate/imminent threat… right?
“Today the world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq. A dictator who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own people must not be allowed to produce or possess those weapons. We will not permit Saddam Hussein to blackmail and/or terrorize nations which love freedom.”
–George W. Bush
“On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death.”
–George W. Bush
No-one is making any argument either way about whether or not Hussein was or was not an “immediate threat.”
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that he was, the fact remains that Rumsfeld told a barefaced LIE when he said that neither he nor the President had ever used the term “immediate threat” in relation to Hussein.
Can you see it, dimwit?
Rumsfeld: Well, you’re the–you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase “immediate threat.” I didn’t. The president didn’t. And it’s become kind of folklore that that’s–that’s what’s happened.
What would it take for you admit that this statement is a lie?
– Rumsfeld, 18 September 2002 (from the transcript AND the clip)
Whether or not anyone in the administration ever said Iraq was an immediate threat, they certainly thought that it was necessary to invade in less than six months following the statements qouted above. Sounds like they considered it an immediate threat to me.
P.S. Anyone who uses moveon.org as a source, like mhendoh, is a partisan idiot to begin with. You could have quoted the actual transcript in your OP, but you didn’t. Why not?
You must like moveon’s videos, like the Bush=Nazi one(s). Liberal porn, wanker.
Let’s make this even more simple for our mentally challenged friend.
Rumsfeld: Well, you’re the–you and a few other critics are the only people I’ve heard use the phrase “immediate threat.” I didn’t. The president didn’t.
Milroyj, I don’t know what you think you are trying to accomplish here, but in your past three or four posts you have just about made it impossible for anyone on this board to ever take you seriously again. Really, if you are going to shill for the administration, you have to know when to pick your fights. It’s over, lights out, end of story, the fat lady has warbled her last. You haven’t a leg to stand on; hell you haven’t even a bloody stump to stand on. What tryin’ to say to you is, fer cryin’ out loud, give it up.
milroyj, the biggest wanker in this thread is, well, you. You entered this thread with guns blazing, calling this “Liberal porn” and those who think Rumsfeld lied “wankers”. You follow up by ignoring the quote that demolishes your argument. When called on it, you attempt to change the subject from a discussion of whether Rumsfeld said “immediate threat” to one of whether it actually was an immediate threat. Recall the OP:
Face it. You thought this was a wank thread, and posted as much. Someone called you on it, and you ignored the parts of the interview that didn’t fit your position. When called on that, you attempt to change the subject. And when called on your attempt to change the subject, you go off on a mini-rant about, of all things!, the source used in the OP. Which of course has NO BEARING WHATSOEVER ON WHETHER OR NOT DONALD RUMSFELD LIED, WHICH IS THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT MADE BY THE OP.
ADMIT IT: DONALD RUMSFELD LIED. He said that he never used the phrase “immediate threat”. A quotation of him using THAT EXACT PHRASE was then provided to him. EVERY POST in which you ignore this FACT proves further just how much of a damn fool you are.
What’s the difference whether he linked to it directly or indirectly, if the original source is the same anyway? It’s more honest to admit how the info came to his attention, IMO. Beats those posters who basically C&P someone’s blog without attributing the ideas.
Sorry you haven’t found anything to wank to this evening. Apparently it makes you grumpy.
Jeez, dude, if that’s all you’ve got, you’re looking pretty anemic.
I put the video there because the MoveOn site was the first place that i heard about this latest piece of malfeasance from the Defense Secretary. I wanted to get the information on the Boards, and also, video is better for people like you, who have so much trouble putting complex thoughts together.
As soon as the OP was up, i went off in search of the transcript which, in case you didn’t notice, i posted a link to in the 7th post of this thread, about an hour after the thread started.
Pfft. Why’d Friedman let him off the hook so fast? Weenie.
Technically Rumsfeld didn’t say that Iraq was an immediate threat. He just said "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat. . . " So, I mean, maybe no state posed an immediate threat but of all the terrorist states that didn’t pose a threat, Iraq posed the most immediate threat that wasn’t posed. Rumsfeld’s problem is that he didn’t know they knew what he didn’t know when he knew he knew what he knew they knew he didn’t know.
Thank you for elucidating this issue, Truth Seeker. I thought for a minute there that we had caught milroyj in the act of bullshitting, but it looks like I was oh so wrong.
