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

[UselessGit]

[Rumsfeld]
I said a lot of crazy shit to try and get you to support the invasion, you can’t possibly expect me to remember all of it.
[?Rumsfeld]

I feel for the guy, I really do. Every day brings him closer to an eternity in Hell and here we are, making his last years on this planet uncomfortable by pointing out his lies. Give the old man a break already.

[World_Eater]

@IzzyR

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).

You wouldn’t happen to be related to Milroyj would you?

If you can read Mhendo’s fine post and remain skeptical, you are beyond help.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@IzzyR

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 don’t think that we do need to split this particular hair. The administration certainly made the case that Iraq presented a threat to the US, using such rhetoric as “threatening hostility to…the United States . . . . grave and gathering danger . . . immediate threat . . . threats should be clear . . . immediate threat from biological weapons . . .” and more.

“Immediate threat” is, in this context, not an isolated phrase. It’s part and parcel of the whole picture the administration put forth.

I’m not surprised that you weren’t fooled back in October 2002: you’re a smart guy, and the administration’s propaganda was shady even back then. The fact that they didn’t fool you does not excuse their fraud, however: Incompetence neminem excusat, or something like that.

I remain extremely skeptical.

This I take polite issue with :D.
Daniel

[litost]

From ** Rumsfeld ** 's testimony:

Every month that goes by, his WMD programs are progressing and he moves closer to his goal of possessing the capability to strike our population, and our allies…

Isn’t that supposed to be Sauron, not Saddam? (May be they got the two of them mixed up)

[Cervaise]

Hey, France has nuclear weapons. No maybe about it.

And we’re not exactly on friendly terms with them at the moment.

It’s possible relations will continue to deteriorate until, at some point ten or a hundred years from now, it will be safe to consider them the enemy.

Is the threat imminent?

Who cares? Why would we want to wait until it is? It’s suicide to wait until the threat is imminent. No, better to say it’s grave and growing.

So let’s invade France right now before it’s too late!

[World_Eater]

What I find amusing is that they say SH is unique from all tyrants, and then spout off a list that describes North Korea to a T.

[mhendo]

Well, i didn’t want to have to do this, but IzzyR’s skepticism compelled me to make use of my Lexis/Nexis account’s search function.

First tried to search “iraq” and “immediate threat” or “imminent threat” over the past two years, but it wouldn’t let me proceed because the search would have returned more than 1000 results.

Then, because it was specifically Rumsfeld who made the claim about never having used the term, i tried “rumsfeld” and “immediate threat” or “imminent threat,” and confined the search to the year before the invasion of Iraq (i.e., 3/20/2002 to 3/20/2003).

Here are selections from a few of the stories this search uncovered:

Nowhere has that been more evident than in the president’s late intervention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Bush told his aides last year that he wanted “to park” the issue while he dealt with terrorism and the immediate threat of Iraq and other states seeking weapons of mass destruction. In a perfect Bush world, the subjects would be neatly divorced. But they are not – as conventional wisdom has long stated and as Vice President Dick Cheney discovered on his Mideast trip.

(New York times, 21 April 2002, p. 1)

and

Opponents of an invasion, particularly in the State Department, have argued that Iraq would need to commit a recognized international offense to justify an attack under the United Nations charter. Administration hard-liners say the charter allows pre-emptive attacks by nations facing imminent threat.

(USA Today, 11 July 2002, p. 1A)

and

But if Powell and his allies are trying to bluff the Iraqis into concessions while simultaneously undercutting the hawks in the administration it is a dangerous game. Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz have for a year been saying - with presidential backing - that they have all the justification they need for an attack or invasion. The leaks could play straight into their hands. A senior Pentagon source close to Rumsfeld told The Observer that ‘Iraq has given the United States every reason to attack under the UN charter, which allows pre-emptive action by nations facing an imminent threat, which Saddam clearly does.’

(The Observer [UK], 14 July 2002, p. 14)

and

Despite President Bush’s repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. military officers Contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate threat and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership in Baghdad.

<snip>

High-level civilians in the White House and Pentagon vehemently disagree. They contend that Hussein is still acting aggressively, is intimidating his neighbors and is eager to pursue weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them.

(*Washington Post, 28 July 2002, p. A01)

and

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday that international economic sanctions, U.S. military air patrols and other measures over the past decade have largely failed to contain Iraq’s potential for menacing other nations.

<snip>

Most significant, he added, Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction.

“So there is no way any reasonable person could look at that record and say that it’s worked,” he said. “It hasn’t worked.”

But some Republican congressional leaders have joined Democrats in questioning whether sufficient justification exists for preemptive U.S. action. Privately, many senior U.S. military officers have sided with State Department and intelligence officials in arguing that Hussein poses no immediate threat, and that the United States should continue its policy of containment rather than invade Iraq to force a change of leadership.

<snip>

But Rumsfeld and other senior civilians in the White House and Pentagon contend time is not on the side of the United States. Asked by a reporter yesterday why, if the U.S. nuclear deterrent and a policy of containment worked against the Soviet Union for 50 years, they should no longer be considered viable against Iraq, Rumsfeld suggested that Iraq was not as likely to be held in check by the threat of U.S. nuclear retaliation.

( Washington Post, 10 August 2002, p. A05)

and

For all their talk, however, administration officials have not yet made a case for war that would ensure public support, critics say. President Bush must deliver a major speech on the subject, they say, and also secure the vocal support of Congress.

“You have not had the president articulate why Saddam Hussein needs to be removed,” said Lee Hamilton, the former Democratic congressman who now heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “He has not made the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to the United States.”

(New York Times, 11 August 2002, Section 4, p. 1)

and

Many lawmakers say they want to see evidence of an imminent threat from Iraq and to know what a post-war Iraq would look like and who would pay for its upkeep. They also want international support for Bush’s plan, which he has not disclosed.

(Boston Globe, 6 September 2002, p. A1)

and

Mr Bush’s success in winning congressional approval for war is likely to rest on his ability to demonstrate that Saddam poses an imminent threat to America, something that several notable Republicans say he has yet to do.

(The Times [UK], 7 September 2002, p. 19)

Now, while most of these quotes do not show Rumsfeld or Bush using the words “imminent threat” or “immediate threat,” they clearly show that the Administration was trying to play up the threat posed by Iraq, often in the face of criticism or opposition from military and intelligence specialists.

Even more importantly, these stories, and the many similar ones that i didn’t quote from, show that many lawmakers in Washington were making it very clear that they would only authorize an invasion of Iraq if Bush and co. could make a very strong case that Hussein posed an “imminent” or “immediate” threat.

And then, after all this, Rumsfeld made his appearance before the Armed Services Committee, at which he openly declared not only that Iraq posed an “immediate threat,” but that the threat posed by Iraq was even more immediate than than posed by any other country in the world, including North Korea.

Surely it’s obvious that Rumsfeld’s speech, occurring as it did in front of a Senate Committee, was designed specifically to address the concerns being voiced by lawmakers (Democrats and Republicans), and repeated so often in the press, that Iraq did not pose an “immeidate” or “imminent” threat. He went there specifically to make the case that it did pose an immediate threat, in an attempt to head of criticism of the Administration’s hard line on Iraq.

My Lexis/Nexis search brings up many articles, published right after Rumsfeld’s appearance before the Committee, that point to Rumsfeld’s testimony as a significant step in the Administration’s position on Iraq. For example:

Why does the Bush administration want to take action against Iraq?

Rumsfeld told the committee that “no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”

(Houston Chronicle, 19 September 2002, p. 2)

and

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday that the Iraqi president, more than any other world leader, poses a clear and present danger to the United States and its allies. Several members of Congress, including Republicans, have raised concerns about the timing of Bush’s campaign and its target. They have asked why the United States needs to act now and why Iraq – as opposed to other countries, such as Iran, known to harbor terrorists and be seeking weapons of mass destruction – presents the greatest threat.

“No terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein,” Rumsfeld told the House Armed Services Committee yesterday.

(Washington Post, 19 September 2002, p. A01)

and

While leaders in the US and overseas debate the next nuance and wording of resolutions, the White House is stepping up its campaign to convince the world of the need to oust the Iraqi leader - quickly. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in testimony on Capitol Hill yesterday, spoke gravely of the consequences of inaction.

“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq,” he said.

(Christian Science Monitor, 19 September 2002, p. 01)

And it appears that Rumsfeld’s speech, and the other maneuvering by the administration during that week, had an effect on some of those lawmakers.

Mr Rumsfeld received broad backing from senators and congressmen. “We’ve got to be together in the United States supporting the diplomatic and military, if necessary, to solve this problem,” said Dick Gephardt, a Democrat and the House minority leader.

Tom Daschle, the Senate majority leader, said: “I think there will be a vote well before the elections. The real question is what will the resolution say?”

Polls had shown 55 per cent of Americans wanted an early vote in Congress and that Mr Bush’s personal popularity had gone up to 70 per cent after portraying Democrats as obstructionists.

(Daily Telegraph [UK], 19 September 2002, p. 16)

And Rumsfeld kept beating the drum in the following days:

Rumsfeld met Friday morning with the editorial board of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution before pressing the administration’s case in one-on-one interviews with local television reporters.

The defense secretary said Bush still is undecided about whether to use force against Iraq, but Rumsfeld left no doubt about the threat the administration believes Saddam poses.

“No terrorist state poses a greater threat to our security than Iraq,” Rumsfeld told his Atlanta audience.

(Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 28 September 2002, p. 1A)

and

They go to the same intelligence briefings. They talk to the same senior Bush administration officials. They hear the same facts about the threat posed by Iraq.

Yet Ohio lawmakers are reaching very different conclusions about whether Saddam Hussein’s regime is enough of a danger to the United States to justify taking military action soon.

“I wish everybody in Ohio had all the information I had,” said Sen. George V. Voinovich, R-Ohio, who announced last week that he will support a Senate resolution to give Bush the authority to wage war.

“I’ve been briefed by (national security adviser Condoleezza) Rice, (Secretary of Defense Donald H.) Rumsfeld and the CIA,” Voinovich said. “I’ve got a really good feel for where (Saddam) is in terms of his capabilities. He’s a dangerous guy.”

(Columbus Dispatch, 6 October 200, p. 5a)

And people in the government were worried that their own misgivings about the level of threat posed by Hussein were being ignored by Bush.

While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration’s double-time march toward war.

<snip>

They charge that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House’s argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary.

(Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 9 October 2002, p. 14A)

There are plenty more articles where those came from, but i’m getting weary of reading, cutting, and pasting.

You may still disagree, but it seems clear to me that the issue of Iraq’s “immediate” or “imminent” threat was a major one in the lead-up to the war, for the Administration, for other lawmakers in the United States, for the press in America and across the world, and, by extension, for the American people.

If you’re still willing to give Rumsfeld a pass because he just “forgot,” then i think there’s very little more i can do to change your mind.

[rjung]

@Coldfire

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?

I believe this is a cue for elucidator to share his theory that the die-hard Bush-supporting conservative Republicans are undergoing massive cognitive dissonance between what they believe and what really happened.

I’m pretty sure Milroyj is an early casualty of this Bush-apologizin’ brain-sprain.

[IzzyR]

mhendo,

Firstly, thanks for the links!

Now, while most of these quotes do not show Rumsfeld or Bush using the words “imminent threat” or “immediate threat,” they clearly show that the Administration was trying to play up the threat posed by Iraq, often in the face of criticism or opposition from military and intelligence specialists.

Well there is no doubt that they did this. I thought I acknowledged this earlier. (There were also other military and intelligence officials who agreed with the administration). The issue here is only about the immediate threat.

Even more importantly, these stories, and the many similar ones that i didn’t quote from, show that many lawmakers in Washington were making it very clear that they would only authorize an invasion of Iraq if Bush and co. could make a very strong case that Hussein posed an “imminent” or “immediate” threat.

This is also true. But it is possible that these are the lawmakers who were not ultimately won over. (You seem to be trying to suggest that these lawmakers must have been won over by the Bush claims of immediate threat.)

And then, after all this, Rumsfeld made his appearance before the Armed Services Committee, at which he openly declared not only that Iraq posed an “immediate threat,” but that the threat posed by Iraq was even more immediate than than posed by any other country in the world, including North Korea.

This whole North Korea thing is a red herring. Sometimes you just can’t tell the truth in government, and NK is one example. Everyone knows that NK is far more dangerous than Saddam (at least absent the oil issue). But you can’t attack NK for that very reason - they are too strong and the cost in military and civilian casualties would be enormous. However, the US is still trying to contain them in one form or another, and to announce outright that you are afraid to take them on would be damaging to that effort.

Surely it’s obvious that Rumsfeld’s speech, occurring as it did in front of a Senate Committee, was designed specifically to address the concerns being voiced by lawmakers (Democrats and Republicans), and repeated so often in the press, that Iraq did not pose an “immeidate” or “imminent” threat. He went there specifically to make the case that it did pose an immediate threat, in an attempt to head of criticism of the Administration’s hard line on Iraq.

It does not appear that way to me, from reading the transcript that you’ve linked to. Nonetheless, the multitude of media quotes that you’ve posted here emphasizing that one sentence of Rumsfeld’s does give me pause. My skepticism has been lessened - it is possible that you may be right.

(BTW, World Eater, is it possible that you may have been previously known by a different user name? It’s odd that I don’t recognize someone with such a high post count and such a distinctive style.)

[World_Eater]

@IzzyR

mhendoMy skepticism has been lessened - it is possible that you may be right.

Ok, so you may not be related to Milroyj

(BTW, World Eater, is it possible that you may have been previously known by a different user name? It’s odd that I don’t recognize someone with such a high post count and such a distinctive style.)
[/QUOTE]

Nope, same name from the day I registered.

[World_Eater]

Bah, my distinctive style is I fuck up my coding every other post.

To any passing mods, little help?

[DoctorJ]

Tom Tomorrow, six months ago, right on target.

[mhendo]

@DoctorJ

Tom Tomorrow, six months ago, right on target.

Gotta love T.T.

[chula]

I just discovered a searchable database of lies told by the Bushistas regarding Iraq. http://www.house.gov/reform/min/features/iraq_on_the_record/

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

mhendo, incidentally, fantastic quote-mongering there – thanks for your work on that!
Daniel

[MeanJoe]

Oh for fuck’s sake, just be honest and admit it - he lied!

I am a Republican/Conservative, a bit more socially liberal but whatever…

When President Clinton lied, I called him on it and felt he should be held accountable for lying. It is called a “principle” and he lied directly to the American people. Justify the lie how you’d like, I might even agree with you, but he lied - period.

Donald Rumsfeld, and President Bush, have lied to the American people. Although not “under oath” which was my big issue with Clinton, they fucking bald-face lied to the American people. Period.

I am really getting disgusted at Republicans who continue, in the face of a blatant betrayal of their party, blindly and fucking partisanly backing this shit up. Look people, if you are a Republican consider:

• This administration lied to you. Rumsfeld lied to you. Bush lied to you. You called Clinton on his shit, call your own team for the same thing.

• You once were in favor of responsible fiscal policy. Bush has spent more than the worst of any Democratic president.

• You once were against bloated social programs that waste tax-payers money yet you ignore the fact that Bush has introduced a medicare prescription program with no price controls which blatently wastes tax payers money!

• You once were against them “lib-ruhls” who want to amend the constitution to cover social issues. You once believed in the concept that the power of the Federal government derives from the States and social issues should be decided on the State level. Now you blindly follow as Bush wants to amend the mother fucking most sacred document in our Nation to remove the ability of the States to decide the issue of “gay marriage”. Christ almight what the fuck?!?

The list can go on and on. Do yourself the credit of being intellectually honest. If that is to much, at least be ideologically honest to the Republican Party and open your eyes to the destruction Bush, et.al, has done to our party.

This November, I will vote for Kerry. Not because I agree with Kerry’s positions, not because I have renounced my Conservative roots, I am voting for Kerry because Bush has betrayed me, you, and the GOP! He has earned my vote against him.

Man I am sick of this shit…

MeanJoe

Forgive my lack of grammer, coherent thought, and considerable outrage. This is The Pit and I had to vent at the assholes who have given my party a bad (or worse by some people’s opinion) name. Fuckers.

[NurseCarmen]

My dad’s a lifelong Republican, and these days he sounds like MeanJoe without the swearwords.

[Squink]

@MeanJoe

Oh for fuck’s sake, just be honest and admit it - he lied!
…
I am voting for Kerry because Bush has betrayed me, you, and the GOP! He has earned my vote against him.

Poor Bastard, if it helps any, I feel your pain
Perhaps you can work to reclaim your party from the forces of darkness, so that by the time 2008 rolls around, you’ll be able to present the nation with a credibly conservative choice.

[sailor]

@MeanJoe

Oh for fuck’s sake, just be honest and admit it - he lied!

I am a Republican/Conservative, a bit more socially liberal but whatever…

When President Clinton lied, I called him on it and felt he should be held accountable for lying. It is called a “principle” and he lied directly to the American people. Justify the lie how you’d like, I might even agree with you, but he lied - period.

Donald Rumsfeld, and President Bush, have lied to the American people. Although not “under oath” which was my big issue with Clinton, they fucking bald-face lied to the American people. Period.

I am really getting disgusted at Republicans who continue, in the face of a blatant betrayal of their party, blindly and fucking partisanly backing this shit up. Look people, if you are a Republican consider:

• This administration lied to you. Rumsfeld lied to you. Bush lied to you. You called Clinton on his shit, call your own team for the same thing.

• You once were in favor of responsible fiscal policy. Bush has spent more than the worst of any Democratic president.

• You once were against bloated social programs that waste tax-payers money yet you ignore the fact that Bush has introduced a medicare prescription program with no price controls which blatently wastes tax payers money!

• You once were against them “lib-ruhls” who want to amend the constitution to cover social issues. You once believed in the concept that the power of the Federal government derives from the States and social issues should be decided on the State level. Now you blindly follow as Bush wants to amend the mother fucking most sacred document in our Nation to remove the ability of the States to decide the issue of “gay marriage”. Christ almight what the fuck?!?

The list can go on and on. Do yourself the credit of being intellectually honest. If that is to much, at least be ideologically honest to the Republican Party and open your eyes to the destruction Bush, et.al, has done to our party.

This November, I will vote for Kerry. Not because I agree with Kerry’s positions, not because I have renounced my Conservative roots, I am voting for Kerry because Bush has betrayed me, you, and the GOP! He has earned my vote against him.

Man I am sick of this shit…

MeanJoe

Forgive my lack of grammer, coherent thought, and considerable outrage. This is The Pit and I had to vent at the assholes who have given my party a bad (or worse by some people’s opinion) name. Fuckers.

I have lived in Dc many years but not being a US citizen i did not vote for president, just endured them. In a way it was good because I could just like them or dislike them without any responsibility of having to decide. I am pretty conservative and i disagreed with Clinton’s policies so it was not difficult to also dislike him personally for being a slimeball. When GWB came in I had high hopes but I soon saw all the things you are pointing out and I called them as I saw them. I do not understand blind loyalty to persons or parties.

At any rate, for the first time in years I was back in Spain during the recent election and I had to decide who to vote for. The fact is that I am mostly conservative and agreed much more with the PP than with the socialists on pretty much everything. But I just cannot in conscience vote for the guys who lied to me and who supported a war based on lies. Believe me I have had to hold my nose to vote against them but that is what I did: vote against them. There will probably be a price to pay in the economy and other aspects but I am willing to give these guys a chance to prove me wrong rather than give my vote to the guys who lied to me.

[minty_green]

@milroyj

Does anyone chastize minty green for his liberal (heh) use of the term “Republican porn”?

Your usage is incorrect. “Repulican porn” is a false or unproven claim or statement, a sort of political urban legend. “Liberal porn,” as you’ve applied it in this thread, is true but (from your perspective) trivial. Observe:

“Hillary murdered Vince Foster!” – Republican porn

“Rummy lied about never saying Iraq was an imminent/immediate threat!” --Liberal porn