Holy fucking shit. This is unbelievable.
I wasn’t surprised by the footage, but it was nice to have it right there. Hopefully we won’t need any more of the nitpicking we’ve had about the specific words ‘imminent threat.’ I’m surprised this wasn’t making the rounds sooner.
Well, here’s a source that might convince - the US Congress:
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/
The Rumsfeld quote is in there too, of course. So what is this then - Democrat porn? 
Go forth and fuck yourself.
Pronto, public street, daylight.
Humiliated, dropsy-brained, limited option, no future, failed dream, loser ideology, lie vending false faced, quick sqaushed plain wrong in open space know nothing.
Sorry Cheddarsnax, you know how people get.
Please consider above post recycled into MilroyJ “no imminent threat” swatting.
Milroyj… you are… incredible. I’m seriously lost for words. How can you look at that video (CBS footage, unaltered) and come to the conclusion that Rumsfeld didn’t lie?
All partisanship aside, this is simpler than elementary school math. Rumsfeld says “I never said A”. Journalist cites two instances where he DID say A, where one could argue one case was clearer than the other, but nonetheless, both prove Rumsfeld was talking out of his ass.
End of fucking story. Rumsfeld lied.
I fear Milroyj is a reflection of those currently calling the shots. A bunch of completely inflexible never do wrong blind motherfuckers who think we’re a ignorant flock of sheep. If Osama was driving an 18 wheeler down the street, they would rather get run over then move out of the way, because only pussies are afraid of getting hit by trucks. :rolleyes:
Milrojy,
Read my post #11 in this topic.
It can offer you also some help you to escape from the quick-sand you got yourself plunged into.
I’m sure others shall be ready to give you a cleaning ice-cold shower when you manage to clim out of that mud (in the meantime als clearing up your clouded mind).
Good luck. And since you are such a Bush fan: God must be with you, so you musn’t feel any fear.
Salaam. A
Looking at Rumsfeld fixed and wriggling on a pin reminded me of the episode of the Simpsons where Lisa goes out with Ralph Wiggum and dumps him on the Krusty show. Bart tapes it and freezes it at the frame where Raplh’s soul is crushed.
If you pause the video, you can see Rumpy with exactly the same expression.
I don’t see the big deal. Rumsfeld forgot that he had said it, and so thought that he hadn’t. Now what?
I know one poster to this very thread who once denied having said something and, on being directed to a link showing otherwise, simply noted that you can’t expect someone to remember everything they posted. If there’s one thing we know about politicians it is that they are constantly giving speeches all over the place spouting all sorts of blather, and there’s no way they can possibly remember every phrase that they might have once used.
What is significant is not whether you can pin down Rumsfeld or any other administration official as having used the phrase once or twice somewhere. What is significant is the larger picture of how the war was sold to the public. Now there was an enormous amount of speechifying on the subject going on at the time. It would seem to me that if the best you can do is to come up with a few isolated quotes here and there, then the overall sales job was not to present the immediate threat as the basis for the need to invade.
Congratulations, milroyJ.
I’m not one who gets involved in the political threads on the SDMB; there are too many people who can express their opinions far more eloquently and succinctly than I can. The content of any post I might contribute would boil down to “Uh, what he said.”
Subsequently the regular participants in such threads often run together in a blur. A few stand out of course, but I’m fuzzy about keeping track of who debates well, who usually uses good logic, who tends to fly off the handle, who nitpicks points to death, and so on and so forth.
Today, you’ve brought yourself into sharp focus for me.
I have never had such a clear mental picture of a poster literally sticking his fingers in his ears and singing “La la la I can’t hear you.”
You’re exhibiting some of the worst closed-mindedness I’ve seen around here, libreal or conservative. The door slammed shut as soon as you saw the URL. “moveOn.org? It must be liberal bullshit, consider the source!” If you insist you actually watched the video, I am forced to presume you have developed the amazing ability to voluntarily cut off most of the blood supply to your eyes and ears, leaving you to see only the sappy colors of a Kinkade painting and hear only a sugary melody by Kenny G. “Lying? That video doesn’t show anything about Rumsfeld lying! La la la la…”
How do you do that? Biofeedback? You’ve trained your brain to clamp down when presented with the possibility of an opposing viewpoint? Incredible self-control, sir. I may have to attempt it myself. I’ll start by reminding myself to ignore anything you say from here on out.
“Wanker”? “Git”?
I think milroyj is a British double agent, working for the Liberal Democrats to sow the seeds of dissent amongst conservative ranks.
That’s not a bad point there, Izzy. But given that this is the case, wouldn’t it be wiser for Rumsfeld to NOT claim with such certainty that he never used those words, in a pathetic attempt to retroactively downplay the amount of spin used to sell the war?
Especially if one is 143 years old, and probably has trouble remembering one’s home address.
Great Stuff ! BTW Rummy is lying about lying ! So its 2 lies. Once about imminent threat and in the video denying he said it !
Absolutely.
For me, the big deal is precisely that the war was sold as being on the basis of Iraq’s imminent threat to the United States: over and over Bush talked about Hussein’s big nasty WMD program, about how he was trying to get nuclear weapons, about hw ultralights could spray biological agents over vast stretches, etc.
Once all that talk turned out to be so much bullshit (or rather once it was proven to be bullshit), they changed their tune and began categorically denying that they’d sold the war in that fashion. They were weaseling constantly, choosing out specific phrases and denying that they’d ever said them, as if by denying they’d used the phrase “immediate threat” they could deny they’d ever implied that.
Their dishonesty was already a given. This video is a thing of sweetness and light because it shows that not only are they weaseling, they’re also flat-out lying.
If Rumsfeld denied ever referring to his boss as Dubya and Friedman quoted him doing just that, then sure, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But Rummy’s lie was central to the administration’s backpedaling strategy on how they justified the war. I know that their policy is a lie, and I think you know that their policy is a lie, but most folks don’t pay that much attention to the news, and it’s wonderful to see it laid out in black and white, in such undeniable terms.
Daniel
Thanks for saving me some typing, this is spot on.
This is 100% solid gold, well said.
And the fact is that most of the American people, and the American press, were under the strong impression that a major Administration reason for going to war with Iraq was the imminent threat that Hussein posed to America and the world.
Seriously, are you arguing that this is a simple case of forgetting some minor thing that he said? This was no flippant comment, easily forgotten; it was a central reason underlying the Bush administration’s rationale for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq.
Furthermore, Rumsfeld never even bothered to cover his own ass by sating “I don’t remember using the phrase ‘immediate threat,’” or “I can’t recall that the President or i ever used that phrase.” If he had claimed a lack of memory, we might not have believed hiim, but at least he would have the ever-useful “plausible deniability.” But he came straight out and said “I didn’t. The President didn’t,” and he was called on it.
But what really kills your argument is the context in which Rumsfeld’s “Immediate threat” comment was made.
It was not just some off-hand remark to a staff member or a friend.
It was not even a simple comment to a journalist in private or in a news conference.
You want to know where that comment was made? That comment that you excuse Rumsfeld for “forgetting”?
Have a look here:
PREPARED TESTIMONY BY U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
DONALD H. RUMSFELD
SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON IRAQ
SEPTEMBER 19, 2002
So, this was a prepared statement, presumably crafted over many hours by Rumsfeld’s staff, and examined in multiple fdrafts by the Defense Secretary himself. And it was presented to the Senate committee that has jurisdiction over, among other things,
Now, i don’t know about you, but if i was giving testimony to this Committee on a subject as important a taking the nation to war, i’d probably have some recollection of what rationale i gave for such an action.
Not only that, but the quote dredged up by Friedman on “Face the Nation” was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of Rumsfeld’s characterization of Hussein. If you’ll remember, the quote itself was:
But let’s have a look at some of the other stuff from that testimony, stuff which gives a very clear idea of the Administration’s thinking on Iraq:
There’s more, but you get the picture.
How Rumsfeld can now go on TV and declare that neither he nor the President ever described Iraq as an immediate threat defies all credulity. Even when he wasn’t using precisely those words, the whole 24 pages of his testimony is devoted to showing precisely that Iraq posed an immediate threat.
Left Hand of Dorkness & mhendo,
I think you need to distinguish between claims about Iraqi WMD, which the administration undoubtedly went on and on about, and claims that these WMD posed an immediate threat to the US, which appear to be isolated quotes, and even those do not appear to have been the main thrust of the argument for war. (In his SAS testimony, he goes on and on about how ruthless Saddam is and how he is pursuing WMD, but does not make much of the idea that he is imminently about to attack - his line was addressing the issue of why go after Saddam and not a number of other countries that are pursuing WMD, to which he says that the danger from Saddam is greater and more imminent).
I am aware that you guys believe the administration sold the war on the basis of the imminent threat, but I don’t think you’ve made a case for it. (It is true that they’ve shifted from WMD to “the Iraqi people have been liberated”). I follow the news as much as the next guy and I don’t recall the imminent threat as having been the big issue at the time. (Here’s a post in which I discussed the issue at the time). Which, again, is not to say that no one ever made such an assertion or used such language - only that this was not the main thrust of the sales pitch. As I noted earlier, had Bush & Co been out there saying that we need to invade because of an imminent threat they should have made the point a lot more often than these few quotes, and a lot more forcefully too, for that matter. I remain extremely skeptical.
Mhendo’s post makes me want to throw up.
Vote these sick fucks out.