Rumsfeld, WMDs, "truthiness": Someone come defend the whacked bastard

[Knorf]

This article has some interesting reporting about our most honorable Secretary of War, er I mean Defense.

Once upon a time, Mr. Rumsfeld made the following remarks, according to official Pentagon transcripts:

@Rumsfeld

The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Fast forward to last week.

@Seattle P.I.

The Pentagon chief denied he had lied and said he had relied on official intelligence reports about Saddam’s weapons.

His questioner persisted: “You said you knew where they were.”

Rumsfeld: “I did not. I said I knew where ‘suspect’ sites were.”

More gems from the article:

Mr. Rumsfeld at one point was convinced that the Iraq people would greet the invading coaltion with open arms…

On Feb. 20, 2003, a month before the invasion, Jim Lehrer asked Rumsfeld on PBS’ “NewsHour” program whether he thought the invasion would “be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq.”

“There is no question but that they would be welcomed,” Rumsfeld said, referring to American forces in Iraq.

Ah, but 6 months or so after that he said:

“Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently, and you said … they would welcome us with open arms,” Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off.

“Never said that,” Rumsfeld said, according to the official Pentagon transcript. “Never did. You may remember it well, but you’re thinking of somebody else. You can’t find anywhere me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said. I may look like somebody else.”

He does indeed look like somebody else. Not sure who, but clearly someone else.

The article has several more examples. The pattern of behavior–Mr. Rumsfeld apparently looking like someone else–is consistent.

Anyway, what’s the big deal, hmm? Is he just off his nut? After all, his previous remarks are on the record. Does he think his persistent mendacity isn’t going to be noticed by anybody?

Or is the truthiness of his earlier remarks ambiguous enough for his currrent versions to be deemed semi-correct, at least sufficiently so to meet the exalted standards of the present administration?

Is there anybody left who thinks that truth and reliable honesty are admirable qualities in a Secretary of Defense?

Yes, “truthiness” is my new favorite word. Sorry about that.

Mr. Rumsfeld, I hearby pit thee; I damn thee to the special level of hell reserved for child molesters and people who talk at the theater. May you roast in peace: here now, and there later.

[Merijeek]

It’s just a misunderstanding. You’re getting confused by the Liberal Media.

As far as the “We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”, he’s obviously referring to American troops, not WMDs.

The reporter said “Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently, and you said … they would welcome us with open arms”. However, Rumsfeld said, “There is no question but that they would be welcomed”.

Where in Rumsfeld’s statement do you see anything about “open arms”? Nowhere.

Don’t worry, John, I’ve got this one covered.

-Joe

[mhendo]

This stuff is par for the course for Rumsfeld. And it’s actually pretty good strategy, because when he makes these denials he sounds very confident and sure of himself, and by the time they are exposed as out-and-out lies, everyone has moved on and no-one seems to care anymore.

I started a thread over two years ago about a similar incident, where he got caught out right there on the spot.

The video linked in my OP seems no longer to be available, but i did manage to find another copy here (warning: direct link to wmv video file).

[El_Kabong]

Hey, he’s getting up in years. He forgets things. Jeez.

[rjung]

It’s not Rumsfeld’s fault that reality has a well-known liberal bias.

[John_Mace]

OK, I’ll defend him (on the first item).

First of all, how many of us could remember the exact words we used 3 years ago when speaking to someone? Isn’t that about the time lapse we’re talking about here? I guess you could argue that he should say he doesn’t remember saying those things rather than forcefully denying them. Somehow, though, I suspect that wouldn’t satisfy the OP.

On item #1, though, I think it’s a bit of a quibble to bitch about saying “sites” vs “suspected sites”. It’s kind of like when we talk about a crime and don’t always say “alleged”, even if the jury hasn’t convicted the guy yet. It’s basically implied. And it was the official position of the Bush administration that we “knew” (ie, strongly suspected) where we’d find caches of WMDs, wasn’t it? So, yeah, technically this is “gotcha”, but it doesn’t exactly resonate. He didn’t remember that 3 years ago he said “sites” instead of “suspected sites”. I just can’t get too worked up over that.

But I don’t understand why he’d deny saying the second thing. We were welcomed by the majority of the Iraqis. They just didn’t like what we did staying on as occupiers. He seemed to be way too defensive. Almost like someone who is so ready to lie (or deny) that he even does so when there’s no reason to! And this is something I think he should’ve remembered saying after 3 years-- or at least remember having said something like it.

I do have to say, though, that my bitch with Rumsfeld is how he executed this war, not these little “gotchas”. I don’t remember how gung-ho he was in the lead up, and whether or not he was banging the war drums with Cheney et al, but it was his job to run the war. And waaaaaaaaay too many mistakes have been made. He should’ve been booted out long ago.

[RedFury]

Bah! Like the Great Man himself once said:

@Rumsfeld

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

So, that was simply a “known unknown”

[Squink]

Sunday, March 30, 2003 - 11:30 A.M. EST
Secretary Rumsfeld Remarks on ABC “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”

SEC. RUMSFELD: Yeah. Do it. His circumstance is not a happy one. We’re within 49 miles of Baghdad. He’s being closed on from the north, south, and there’s so many people running around hyper-ventilating that things aren’t going well. This plan is working.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think – let me take that, both pieces – the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it’s a large geographic area. It is the – Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what’s there in fifteen minutes.

I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don’t know that. But it’s way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.

U.S. Department of Defense

[RedFury]

@Mace

He didn’t remember that 3 years ago he said “sites” instead of “suspected sites”. I just can’t get too worked up over that.

That’s right. For the purposes of illegally invading a country and killing thousands of its citizens, “suspected” and “known” are exactly the same thing.

I suspect – based on pure bullshit-- that John Mace has illegal weapons in his house; let’s go in guns blazing. No doubt anyone left alive after the raid wilol greet us with hugs and flowers.

Strictly a semantical issue.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

That’s right. For the purposes of illegally invading a country and killing thousands of its citizens, “suspected” and “known” are exactly the same thing.

The invasion was legal. You can say it was illegal as much as you like, but simply isn’t so.

But that’s not the point. We didn’t need to know where the WMDs were to suspect that Saddam had them. Remember, most of us thought he most likely had some WMDs somewhere. We (folks like you and I) just didn’t think it was worth going to war over. So, I 'll say it once again. The fact that Rumsfeld couldn’t remember having said “sites” instead of “suspected sites” 3 years ago get’s a resounding “Meh” from me.

Don’t mistake that for general support of Rumsfeld. I never much liked the guy, and like him even less since this whole Iraq mess. But the OP put up a challenge, and I accepted. So far, you haven’t effectively rebutted my defense of item #1.

[RedFury]

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: “I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing.”

<snip>

“They’re just not interested in international law, are they?” said Linda Hugl, a spokeswoman for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which launched a high court challenge to the war’s legality last year. "It’s only when the law suits them that they want to use it."

Too right.

[SteveG1]

@RedFury

Bah! Like the Great Man himself once said:

So, that was simply a “known unknown”

Oh. My. God.
That sounds eerily like Nixon’s

“I know you think you understand what you think I said…”

I can’t remember the rest, it makes my brain hurt.

[Aeschines]

Rummy’s an abomination.

[Gorsnak]

@John Mace

On item #1, though, I think it’s a bit of a quibble to bitch about saying “sites” vs “suspected sites”.

I don’t think that’s the quibble we’re talking about. Rumsfield said they knew where the WMDs are, and he wasn’t the only one. Much was made about them knowing about Saddam’s WMDs, what and where they were, etc. They didn’t just suspect, they knew. It’s not just quibbling to distinguish between them, because the case for war was based on these WMDs that the Bush Administration knew about. Yes, everyone including me suspected that Saddam has some moldering piles of old chemical weapons. But suspicions aren’t sufficient cause to war, and Bush and Rumsfield insisted they weren’t just suspicions, but in fact rose to the level of knowledge. For Rumsfield to now say “I never said we knew where the WMDs are, we just has a list of suspect cites,” is certainly worth pitting. It’s roughly akin to the leader of a lynch mob saying before the lynching “We know this guy did it,” and afterwards saying “Well I never said we knew he did it, just that we suspected it.” Even if it weren’t a complete lie about what he said, it would undermine his realpolitik defense for the lynching.

So frankly Rumsfield loses either way. If we support your interpretation (Rumsfield never claimed knowledge of WMDs, only suspicions) then he never established any reasonable basis for going to war. If we take the Administration’s case for war at face value, on the other hand, Rummy is lying through his teeth now. Or, and this is my preferred take on the matter, Rummy was lying through his teeth then about what he knew, and is lying through his teeth now about what he said then.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

Well, I can list 77 US Senators who disagree with him-- 29 of them Democrats.

But as I said earlier, the legality or illegality of the war isn’t central the point I made about giving Rumsfeld a pass on the misstatement about “sites” vs “suspected sites”.

[SteveG1]

Either Rumsefeld was lying then, or he is lying now, or he lied both times, or he is just too senile to remember anything. No matter which explanation, his own words render him unfit for public office.

[Baldwin]

I’ve been hearing a steady flow of lies from all the people at the top of this administration for years – going back to the 1990’s in the case of GWB. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld have all shown a pattern of making definite statements on important matters, then later denying that they said them. I think I got outrage fatigue a long time ago.

I wish there really were a liberal media, because then maybe somebody besides the occasional gutsy soldier or audience member would call these people on their bullshit.

[Zoe]

I believe that the Department of State and the Department of Defense were on the same page in terms of certainty. Colin Powell made it clear in his address to the UN that intelligence went beyond mere suspicion:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” – Sec. Powell

and

“Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.” – Sec. Powell

(Remember the satellite pictures?)

Powell was the more reluctant of the two.

Maybe it would be a good idea if each of us looked at what we were posting, arguing, defending and supporting two and three years ago. Maybe we are as forgetful as Rumsfeld.

My creepy Rumsfeld quotation:

Interviewer: “You mentioned the sorry state of the infrastructure. How come U.S. intelligence didn’t give a better warning of how bad that was?”

Rumsfeld: “Well, resources are finite, and they were worrying about more important things.” – National Press Club Luncheon, September 10, 2003

[RedFury]

@John Mace

Well, I can list 77 US Senators who disagree with him-- 29 of them Democrats.

Couple of interesting quotes from your very cite:

@Bush

Bush also must certify that action against Iraq would not hinder efforts to pursue the al Qaeda terrorist network that attacked New York and Washington last year. And it requires the administration to report to Congress on the progress of any war with Iraq every 60 days

Huhu. That’s exactly how it went down, right? You know I do believe there are remedies for amnesia --especially the selective kind.

Iraq has denied having weapons of mass destruction and has offered to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return for the first time since 1998. Deputy Prime Minister Abdul Tawab Al-Mulah Huwaish called the allegations “lies” Thursday and offered to let U.S. officials inspect plants they say are developing nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.

“If the American administration is interested in inspecting these sites, then they’re welcome to come over and have a look for themselves,” he said.

Exactly who was LYING here?

The only straight shooter at the time:

@Sen Byrd

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, attempted Thursday to mount a filibuster against the resolution but was cut off on a 75 to 25 vote.

Byrd had argued the resolution amounted to a “blank check” for the White House.

“This is the Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again,” Byrd said. "Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution.

[SteveG1]

@Zoe

I believe that the Department of State and the Department of Defense were on the same page in terms of certainty. Colin Powell made it clear in his address to the UN that intelligence went beyond mere suspicion:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.” – Sec. Powell

and

“Ladies and gentlemen, these are not assertions. These are facts, corroborated by many sources, some of them sources of the intelligence services of other countries.” – Sec. Powell

(Remember the satellite pictures?)

Powell was the more reluctant of the two.

Maybe it would be a good idea if each of us looked at what we were posting, arguing, defending and supporting two and three years ago. Maybe we are as forgetful as Rumsfeld.

My creepy Rumsfeld quotation:

Interviewer: “You mentioned the sorry state of the infrastructure. How come U.S. intelligence didn’t give a better warning of how bad that was?”

Rumsfeld: “Well, resources are finite, and they were worrying about more important things.” – National Press Club Luncheon, September 10, 2003

Pretty amazing, how forgetful they tend to be, when it suits their purpose. Regardless, the “people” were told they KNEW there were WMD, and they KNEW where they were. Turned out they didn’t know, it was just “selling the war” re the Downign Street memo. So, whether they “remember” now or not, they still were full of shit, and deliberately so.