Rumsfeld caught lying yet again...

[JitsuGuy]

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/04/03/ana04004.html

Thanks to David Sirota of the Center for American Progress for spotting and forwarding this excerpt in which Rumsfeld is caught in a brazen lie by Bob Schieffer of CBS. Sirota also suggests seeing this [LINK] for further proof of Rumsfeld's lie on "Face the Nation."
Excerpt from "Face the Nation":

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says `some have argued that the nu'--this is you speaking--`that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--suppose I've...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

 

[org]

I have to ask: in what way is using the intelligence available (at the time of the alleged statement) and coming to the same conclusion that the UN, Clinton, and the majority of the legislature came to a lie? They all felt that Iraq had WMD, and was a danger.

The only thing that's changed is that we now have hindsight. If someone with a record of extreme violence told you he intended to do harm to your family, would you wait until he acted to eliminate the threat?

The worst I can find is possibly statements made in error....but made based on the then available evidence.

Where's the blatent lie?

 

[GoRon]

So it is your contention that Saddam was not a threat?

We are not safer now or in the long run with him gone?

The fact that he never complied with the cease fire agreement from the first war by showing that all weapons were destroyed carries no weight with you?

Taking the battle to the terrorists side of the world isn't a sound strategy?

Giving the UN veto over our foreign policy is a good idea?

 

[kbsrn]

And why exactly is that a lie?

`No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'


It could very easily be argued that Hussian Iraq was just that. No one with any intellience could possibly argue that the world isn;t a safer place today then it was when SH was in control of Iraq.

Actually it seems that the more accurate title for the thread would be "Democrats Once again, or continue to ignore reality"

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Al Qaeda is changing governments in Europe because of the activities in Iraq (Spain, next up, France . ).

Is that enough of a connection, or are you going to try the "causation" argument?

Besides

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'

I fail to see the connection. The "inferred" assumption here is that Friedman is talking about WMD (the object of the first question), but he is not. Terrorist state is the operative here. Iraq was a terrorist state.

Rumsfeld did not lie.

 

[JitsuGuy]

If Saddam was a threat, maybe it's because we armed him. But yeah, I guess, if someone said he was a threat to us, we're just to believe that... Our great government doesn't lie to us, no not at all... As if this article isn't proof of that.

And it's not about hindsite either... I remember when Powell tried to make such a great case for war with his pictures of trucks that were used to transfer WMD's or even manufacture them... Their case for war has fallen apart through time, but for some reason we still did the right thing...?

J

 

[kbsrn]

Of Course he was a threat

A reasonable person could only conclude that SH was a threat to this country. To think that he wasn't is to ignore his actions.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

I guess you can hijack your own thread.

You asserted that Rumsfeld was caught in a lie. I showed that he was not.

 

[nico]

And it's not about hindsite either... I remember when Powell tried to make such a great case for war with his pictures of trucks that were used to transfer WMD's or even manufacture them... Their case for war has fallen apart through time, but for some reason we still did the right thing...?

the intelligence that the president based the decision to go to war on is the same intelligence that clinton used as a justification to bomb a few tents, kerry used as justification that hussein should be removed from power, and the rest of the world believed until a little over a year ago. You can't call the current administration liars without calling the rest of the world (including the clinton administration) liars.
Besides, if you really want to debate whether or not Rumsfeld was lying, there's a difference between "immediate" and "more immediate." It's like saying "close" vs. "closest." The sun is the closest star to Earth, but that doesn't mean it's close

 

[SodaPop]

Why doesn't anyone ever bring up the fact that Hussein tried to assassinate a President of the United States?

 

[BowStreetRunner]

Al Gore, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and even Ted Kennedy said Saddaam was a threat
if Bush and Rumsfeld are guilty so are the above Democrats
BSR

 

[JitsuGuy]

No actually you didn't.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

Bush cost me my job, my kids and my houses.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak my mind. I lost my job this past year. When Clinton was president I was secure and prosperous, but in
the last year, we had to close our operations. We simply could not compete with foreign labor. This foreign labor worked for low pay under very bad conditions.

They worked very long shifts, and many even died on the job. This competition could hardly be called "fair." I was forced out of the place where I had worked for 34 years.

Not a single government program was there to help me. How can Bush call himself "compassionate?" Far worse, I lost two of my sons in Bush's evil war in Iraq. They gave their lives for their country, and for what? So that Bush's oil buddies can get rich. My pain of losing my sons is indescribable.

While it is trivial next to the loss of my sons, I regret to say that I also lost my home. I simply have nothing left. How can Bush call himself a Christian when he neglects people like me? I am a senior citizen with various medical problems. I'm not in a position where I can begin a new career. I was reduced to the point where I had to live in a hole in a ground, all because of President Bush.

And when the authorities found me there, did they have any compassion for my misfortune and ailments? No, I was arrested. Mr. Bush, I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a compassionate man! I dare you to look me in the face and tell me you are a Christian. If I had any money left, I would donate it to the Democrat Party.

If Al Gore had been elected in 2000 I would still have a job, a home, and most importantly, my dear sons!

Regards,
Saddam Hussein

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/1017004766310.html
http://homepage.eircom.net/~yahussain/iraqtorture/iraqtorture.html
http://www.amnesty.ca/lightdarkness/iraq.htm
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2409
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/041103/ira_1459684.shtml

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Joe Lieberman (D-CT), John McCain (Rino-AZ) and others, Dec. 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I b elieve that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weap ons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002.

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.

"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his contin ued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

 

[JitsuGuy]

Wow, that gave me such a "warm fuzzy."

 

[kbsrn]

I think we now

know who at least one of the forgein leaders supporting Kerry is.

 

[idd]

Nobody argues that Saddam Hussein was benevolent, or that his government was a peaceful democracy.

So it is your contention that Saddam was not a threat?

Saddam was not a threat to the US.

We are not safer now or in the long run with him gone?

The world is a better place with Saddam's capture and with his government gone. Are we safer? To the extent that the war causes more Arabs and Muslims to hate the US, to withdraw their cooperation, or to work with Al Qaida, then the answer is no. It's too early to to intelligently answer the question. I hope that we are safer over the long run.

in what way is using the intelligence available (at the time of the alleged statement) and coming to the same conclusion that the UN, Clinton, and the majority of the legislature came to? They all felt that Iraq had WMD, and was a danger.

It becomes ever more apparent that political appointees cooked the intel in order to goad the American people into supporting war.

"The New Pentagon Papers: A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the truth to drive the country to war" 10 March 2004 Salon.com
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/kwiatkowski.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski-arch.html

Hans Blix: "It has also become clear that national intelligence organizations and government hawks, but not the inspectors, had been wrong in their assessments." From _Disarming Iraq_ (Pantheon: 2004). In February 2003 Saddam had even offered (finally) documentary evidence that his banned weapons had been destroyed by 1994.

Taking the battle to the terrorists side of the world isn't a sound strategy?

Edward Luttwak considered the Iraq war to be a strategic error. There are good reasons for considering the War counterproductive. See this article by Dr. Jeffrey Record published by the US Army War College.

Giving the UN veto over our foreign policy is a good idea?

Ordinarily, I would not. To hell with the UN is my general attitude, but if you are going to invoke the legitimacy of the UN by arguing that the war was needed to enforce UN resolutions, then obtaining a resolution of the Un Security Council would be indicated.

Where's the blatent lie?

Here's one.
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

How many do you need?
---------------------

Don't misunderstand me. I hope that they succeed in planting the roots of democracy in Iraq. Now that we are there, I do not advocate that we withdraw, but the simple truth is that Bush and Co. lack credibility on the issue. I no longer believe anything they say about Iraq.

 

[TaurusCIA]

So, lets see.

SCHIEFFER says that Rumsfeld said "they pose an immediate threat"

Then he quotes Rumsfeld "the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent...I would not be so certain."

Notice the clever switch in words. SCHIEFFER changed imminent to immediate. Immediate has a more limited usage. Imminent is a more relevant description of the threat.


Imminent

1. Threatening to occur immediately; near at hand; impending; - said especially of misfortune or peril.

2. Full of danger; threatening; menacing; perilous.


Immediate

1. Not separated in respect to place by anything intervening; proximate; close; as, immediate contact.

2. Not deferred by an interval of time; present; instant.


http://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/imminent


JitsuGuy - Thanks for alerting us to this biased hogwash.

 

[kbsrn]

idd I'm sorry but your

living in a dream world if your trying to claim SH wasn't a threat to this country. And there are a lot of very big clouds in that world if your claiming that the US isn't safer with him gone.

 

[TaurusCIA]

And thanks to "idd" for all those unbiased sources.

 

[JitsuGuy]

TaurusCIA, I think you need to read the quotes again.

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Now he's quoting Rumsfeld again here...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: `No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.'


J

 

[kbsrn]

I did not notice the MOVEON

reference at first. How can any try and have a well reason and thoughful exchange with information from MOVE ON. All they put out is political hate speech. There is not a more hateful group of people in this country today, and that does include the Islamic terrorists that are here.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

JitsuGuy

I just debunked that one up north a bit. Schieffer is talking WMD. Friedman is talking "terrorist state" and makes no mention of WMD. Apples and oranges.

 

[tyme]

"There's no place colder than hell" does not mean Hell is "cold".
"[no terrorist state] poses a more immediate threat... than Iraq" does not mean Iraq poses an immediate threat.

The moment someone says "more immediate than" or "less immediate than" or "almost immediate", "immediate" in that context no longer means "immediate".

If this is the best "contradiction" the Rumsfeld-haters can come up with, they're in trouble.

 

[joab]

There's no place colder than hell" does not mean Hell is "cold".
"[no terrorist state] poses a more immediate threat... than Iraq" does not mean Iraq poses an immediate threat.

Bad analogy . Becuse there are many places colder than hell so that could imply that many terrorist states pose a more immediate threat than Iraq. I agree with your sentiments but this is just a bad example

 

[Diggler]

Here's the way I look at it.

1. Before the war, everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, thought that Saddam had WMD. The UN, Germany, France, all of them. Even Hussein thought that he had them. He sure acted like he did. Maybe his scientists lied to him, maybe he shipped them to Syria. But he wanted the world to know that he had them, whether he did or not.

2. He could have stopped this at any time by allowing the inspections to go on without interference as was agreed to in the cease-fire from the first Gulf War. He didn't.

3. The United States acted on the best intelligence available at the time. Of course, partisan Democrats and the ninnies at the UN, with their 20/20 hindsight, see it differently, although... (see #1).

4. He did have WMD. Ask the Kurds. It's not like this whole idea of Saddam having WMD was just made up out of the blue.

5. Regardless of the current WMD situation, the rape rooms are closed, mass graves aren't being filled anymore, children aren't being tortured in front of their parents, the bloody plastic shredders have been shut down. For some reason, the party who pretends to be such humanitarians doesn't think that this is a good thing. I believe that this alone was enough to require that Saddam be forced from power. I know, there's other bad dictators... you gotta start somewhere.

NOW...

Let's put the US in our situation, as a policeman. Now, if you believe that someone poses a threat, and he acts like he is armed, everyone around him says that he has a gun, HE says he has a gun, and he's had guns in the past, and he is harming everyone around him, you are going to eventually have to go in and disarm him. Now whether he was bluffing about his weapon or not, you have reasonable suspicion and fear for your life and the safety of those around him. He caused you and the others to believe that he had the weapon and now you act on it.

Finally, after a long scuffle, the man is taken into custody, and it is found that he has an AirSoft lookalike gun, but no real weapon on him at the time. But he intimidated everyone around him with the belief that the threat was real. Did you do the right thing? At least he's not harming the people around him anymore.

Do you think that someone who robs a bank with a lookalike gun shouldn't get prosecuted for armed robbery?