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.
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.
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.
A civilized government doesn’t fucking go to war on a suspicion. :rolleyes:
Why? You just admitted that the administration lied us into a war. What the hell do you get worked up over?
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.
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?
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.
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’m sure there are, too. But the OP asked us to defend those particular quotes.
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
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
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?
Well, it seems to me that John Mace’s defense is essentially from my OP:
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.
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.
