# Rumsfeld, WMDs, "truthiness": Someone come defend the whacked bastard **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 8, 2006, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924 "2006-05-08T17:58:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/21 "2006-05-09T13:42:17Z")
Hi **John**. > [@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. That _would_ satisfy me. I wouldn’t aver “never said it” when someone claimed I had said something three years ago. You don’t have a problem with that? That’s one of my chronic issues with the whole administration. They’re always confident, and usually wrong. Rumsfeld is confident he didn’t say something three years ago. > [@](#): > > 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. See, again I see it worlds differently. I don’t hear “suspected sites” in “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.” I hear confidence. The fact that Rumsfeld later claims to have said/meant “_suspected_ sites” doesn’t change that. Try this quote for size, where I’ve secretly replaced ‘sites,’ or a pronoun for same, with the allegedly equivalent phrase ‘suspected sites’: “It happens not to be the SUSPECTED SITE where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where the SUSPECTED SITES are. The SUSPECTED SITES are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” Why would somebody say “we know where the suspected sites are”? “We know where they are” is very different from, “where we expect to find them.” Pretend Nancy Pelosi said this stuff. Would you give her a pass? I also suspect, and ask other bug-eyed liberals to supply the goods, that these aren’t the only quotes we can uncover of Messr. Rumsfeld speaking of knowledge in absolutes about things that didn’t turn out to be true. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/22 "2006-05-09T14:01:08Z")
Absolutes? Because of course, they had to exclude the rejoinder _“That’s what weapons inspections are for!”_ ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/23 "2006-05-09T14:02:39Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > First of all, how many of us could remember the exact words we used 3 years ago when speaking to someone? It’s hardly about the “exact words”, pal, that’s the Brickerspeak you’ve adopted lately. It’s about _substance_. Most of us could, I trust, remember very clearly what went into making the most momentous decision of our lives - what the facts were, what the suppositions were, what the considerations were, how it kept us up nights worrying about doing the right thing. Most of us, too, would not be chary about sharing that with those whose lives we were risking. The wording would follow naturally. He damn sure remembers what he \*thought \* at the time; you’re not kidding anybody but yourself. There is only one \*plausible \* way to understand Rummy’s protesting too much now, and it isn’t something that even you can defend. > [@](#): > > 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. A civilized government doesn’t fucking _go to war_ on a _suspicion_. :rolleyes: > [@](#): > > 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? … 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. Why? You just admitted that the administration lied us into a war. What the hell _do_ you get worked up over? ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/24 "2006-05-09T14:13:56Z")
I think the issue is that some people are still metabolizing the GOP poison, namely: That in some small respect the decision to invade Iraq was prompted by the (faulty) intelligence on its Chem/Bio weapons. As we know to a level of comfortable certainty, the decision to invade preceded any intelligence analysis, or indeed any strategic analysis. The role of intelligence reports and Rumsfeld’s public statements was entirely circumscribed by the pro-war propaganda effort. While this position is rationally impeccable, it is one of those things that individuals need time to assess. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/25 "2006-05-09T14:42:13Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It’s hardly about the “exact words”, pal When _did_ Rummy start using the phrase “suspected sites”? A quick search only shows him using that terminology _after_ they started not finding anything. Did he actually use “suspected sites” during the runup? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/26 "2006-05-09T15:08:32Z")
That was about the time “Weapons of Mass Destruction” turned into “WMD-related program activities”, I believe. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/27 "2006-05-09T15:43:28Z")
> [@bup](#): > > See, again I see it worlds differently. I don’t hear “suspected sites” in “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.” I hear confidence. > > The fact that Rumsfeld later claims to have said/meant “_suspected_ sites” doesn’t change that. > > Try this quote for size, where I’ve secretly replaced ‘sites,’ or a pronoun for same, with the allegedly equivalent phrase ‘suspected sites’: > > “It happens not to be the SUSPECTED SITE where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where the SUSPECTED SITES are. The SUSPECTED SITES are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.” > > Why would somebody say “we know where the suspected sites are”? “We know where they are” is very different from, “where we expect to find them.” Of course you can’t just go substituting words in the 3-year-old quote and have it make sense. You can do that with almost anything. But it’s not like Bush et al are going around saying things like “Well, we told the American people that we weren’t positive about the existence of WMDs, so I don’t know why it’s such a surprise that we didn’t find any.” There isn’t any backpeddling on that-- more an attempt to shift the subject to promoting Democracy in the M.E. > [@](#): > > Pretend Nancy Pelosi said this stuff. Would you give her a pass? I’d give anyone a pass on not remember the exact words he or she said 3 years ago. That’s why I still have a problem with item #2. Rumsfeld goes way beyond denying exact wording-- he denies having said anything like it, which is not only incorrect, but unnecessary. It makes no sense at all. > [@](#): > > I also suspect, and ask other bug-eyed liberals to supply the goods, that these aren’t the only quotes we can uncover of Messr. Rumsfeld speaking of knowledge in absolutes about things that didn’t turn out to be true. I’m sure there are, too. But the OP asked us to defend those particular quotes. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/28 "2006-05-09T15:57:04Z")
**John Mace** - Please accept my apology on one point. It is not a fair characterization of what Rumsfeld said to say that he knew where the WMD’s were and he was lying. I looked up the transcript of the Stephanopolous interview (which I should’ve done in the first place, and immediately after the quotes we’ve been arguing about, he said > [@Rumsfeld](#): > > [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.](http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html) I am chagrined. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/29 "2006-05-09T15:58:01Z")
**John Mace** - Please accept my apology on one point. It is not a fair characterization of what Rumsfeld said to say that he knew where the WMD’s were and he was lying. I looked up the transcript of the Stephanopolous interview (which I should’ve done in the first place), and immediately after the quotes we’ve been arguing about, he said > [@Rumsfeld](#): > > [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.](http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html) I am chagrined. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/30 "2006-05-09T16:20:41Z")
> [@bup](#): > > **John Mace** - Please accept my apology on one point. It is not a fair characterization of what Rumsfeld said to say that he knew where the WMD’s were and he was lying. > > I looked up the transcript of the Stephanopolous interview (which I should’ve done in the first place, and immediately after the quotes we’ve been arguing about, he said > > I am chagrined. Why? They saw a bunch of Iraqis moving stuff out of a building. They thought it was most likely WMDs. So what? Do you think he’s lying about the trucks? If so, how do you know that? This remark seems even less troubling than the earlier one. What am I missing? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/31 "2006-05-09T16:45:16Z")
Well, it seems to me that **John Mace’s** defense is essentially from my OP: > [@Knorf](#): > > 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? Give the administration some credit–it’s done a fantastic job at lowering expectations. (I don’t mean to be snarky to Mr. Mace, since he has made a number of good points.) I remember people giving Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Candidate Gore an incredibly hard time over any apparent lack of veracity, even by–and sometimes especially by–their supporters. Why is the Bush administration given a pass? If it’s just a Sept. 11 effect, how long will it last? My hope is that it’s already fading. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/32 "2006-05-09T16:48:41Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Why? They saw a bunch of Iraqis moving stuff out of a building. They thought it was most likely WMDs. So what? Do you think he’s lying about the trucks? If so, how do you know that? > > This remark seems even less troubling than the earlier one. What am I missing? 😕😕😕 He apologized, and said that he was chagrined. He used that quotation as the reason for his apology. What you are missing, apparently, is the fact that he is agreeing with you, not arguing with you. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/33 "2006-05-09T16:57:47Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > 😕😕😕 > > He apologized, and said that he was chagrined. He used that quotation as the reason for his apology. > > What you are missing, apparently, is the fact that he is agreeing with you, not arguing with you. No! I will \*\*not \*\*accept agreement!! I must continue arguing!!! (I thought he was being facetious.) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/34 "2006-05-09T17:03:58Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > (I thought he was being facetious.) I guess that’s possible. I read it as a genuine apology. We’ll have to wait for confirmation from the source. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2006, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924/35 "2006-05-09T17:12:53Z")
I was being sincere. The stuff after the quote explicitly allows for the possibility that they might not find WMD’s where he said they would - that clearly makes them suspected sites. The WMD’s he was certain of, but the sites no. I still don’t get why you give a pass on someone denying what they said three years ago, but the point is moot. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rumsfeld-wmds-truthiness-someone-come-defend-the-whacked-bastard/355924.md?page=1)