Rumsfeld, caught on tape.

Indeed...nice of move-on to cut off his Explanation.

He used "immediate threat" in a relative manner, and he said he "wasn't so sure" that sadam being 5-7 years away from Nukes was accurate.

Wow...they really got him. :rolleyes:
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Indeed...nice of move-on to cut off his Explanation.

He used "immediate threat" in a relative manner, and he said he "wasn't so sure" that sadam being 5-7 years away from Nukes was accurate.

Wow...they really got him. :rolleyes:

Oh come on! The man on tape himself stated that he and President Bush never used the term "immediate threat" to describe the situation in Iraq before the war and the man pointed out an instance where he did EXACTLY that.

He's pwned, pure and simple. 8)
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Sure, anyone can be owned when taken out of context. Yippe!

The man said he never used the term to describe the situation, he went so far as to say he wondered where this bit "of folklore" had come from, then he was presented with the evidence of his erroneous statement.

What explanation is there to give? (I'm serious, I didn't catch the rest of that interview...what WAS his explanation? :| )
 
Works both ways, Joe. It's not like the Bush Administration hasn't been trying to weasle it's way out of admitting the emphasis it placed on the danger Saddam was to the world for months now by saying "Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, we merely said grave and growing threat, which could manifest itself at any time in the form of a mushroom cloud". Of course, the distinction between the two to the average American was always perfectly clear, I'm sure....
 
digitalwanderer said:
What explanation is there to give? (I'm serious, I didn't catch the rest of that interview...what WAS his explanation? :| )

I'd honestly like to know too. Wouldn't it be nice if MoveOn let us have it, so we can judge for ourselves? Nahh....
 
Joe DeFuria said:
digitalwanderer said:
What explanation is there to give? (I'm serious, I didn't catch the rest of that interview...what WAS his explanation? :| )

I'd honestly like to know too. Wouldn't it be nice if MoveOn let us have it, so we can judge for ourselves? Nahh....

Meh, they've got their own agenda just like everyone else. I expect the republicans will have a response out once this makes it to the talking heads/newspaper headlines, then we'll know.

Heck, I'll be surprised if it ain't on Hardball tonight. :)
 
Interpreting the statement now as he let it be interpreted then is fair however you look at it ...
 
The context changing phrase in the second quote is "greater and more". Those words mean that in relation to anywhere else in the world, there is no greater and more immediate threat. I can say that a pie poses a "greater and more immediate" threat to me then does my feather down comforter. The baked goods could burn my face. Thus the threat is "greater and more immediate". I dont even like rumsfeld, but the degree to which they cut him off on this one is just absurd.
 
That distinction makes little sense if you do not first classify it as an immediate threat in the first place though.
 
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."

"Where's Bush's clock?" asked the man.

"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

----------

Little email joke I got today. :p
 
Natoma said:
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."

"Where's Bush's clock?" asked the man.

"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

----------

Little email joke I got today. :p

:LOL:
 
Natoma said:
A man died and went to heaven. As he stood in front of St. Peter at the Pearly Gates, he saw a huge wall of clocks behind him. He asked, "What are all those clocks?"

St. Peter answered, "Those are Lie-Clocks. Everyone on Earth has a Lie-Clock. Every time you lie the hands on your clock will move."

"Oh," said the man, "whose clock is that?" "That's Mother Teresa's. The hands have never moved, indicating that she never told a lie."

"Incredible," said the man. "And whose clock is that one?" St. Peter responded, "That's Abraham Lincoln's clock. The hands have moved twice, telling us that Abe told only two lies in his entire life."

"Where's Bush's clock?" asked the man.

"Bush's clock is in Jesus' office. He's using it as a ceiling fan."

----------

Little email joke I got today. :p
The first time I heard this joke, it was hillary's clock. ;) I guess people have just updated it. I wonder how old this joke really is.

later,
epic
 
digitalwanderer said:
Joe DeFuria said:
Sure, anyone can be owned when taken out of context. Yippe!

The man said he never used the term to describe the situation, he went so far as to say he wondered where this bit "of folklore" had come from, then he was presented with the evidence of his erroneous statement.

What explanation is there to give? (I'm serious, I didn't catch the rest of that interview...what WAS his explanation? :| )

Uh oh, better watch out. You're not following the Sheeple (as DS would say) and someone will post the raving lunatic picture. I have agree with digitalwanderer.

-Joe, you got to admit, there was nothing taken out of context, so get them lips off their dicks because when you'll realize the pearl necklace they gave you wasn't made of real pearls, you're just going to have a bad taste in your mouth. ;)
 
linthat22 said:
Uh oh, better watch out. You're not following the Sheeple (as DS would say) and someone will post the raving lunatic picture. I have agree with digitalwanderer.

-Joe, you got to admit, there was nothing taken out of context, so get them lips off their dicks because when you'll realize the pearl necklace they gave you wasn't made of real pearls, you're just going to have a bad taste in your mouth. ;)

Since this is sort of a first warning I'm not going to delete this post, but this is not the sort of political 'debating' I want to see in this forum. Please refrain from this style in the future.
 
the simple fact is; they billed this war on the grounds of a preemptive strike. for an attack to be preemptive, by definition, requires a imminent threat. that was just one of the many ways in which they mislead the public into believing something that we know now was not true, and something they now claim to have never believed in the first place.

as for why move on didn't show Rumsfeld's complete response, no amount of his sophistry is going to change the facts. besides, the longer they make the commercial the more it costs them to air it.
 
zidane1strife said:
Found this on ga...

Originally posted by MIMIC
Here's the transcript (3/14/04):
(CBS) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Thomas Friedman of The New York Times join Face the Nation. Read the transcript here in Pdf: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/face_031404.pdf

Thanks! Here's what Rumsfeld said when the tape cut off in response:

The Transcript said:
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. David Kay said we're about 85 percent there. I
don't know if that's the right percentage. But the Iraqi Survey Group--we've got 1,200 people
out there looking. It's a country the size of California. He could have hidden his--enough
chemical or biol--enough biological weapons in the hole that--that we found Saddam Hussein
in to kill tens of thousands of people. So--so it's not as though we have certainty today.
But what--think what happened. There were 17 UN resolutions. There was unanimous
agreement that he had filed a fraudulent declaration. The final opportunity was given with
the last resolution, and he didn't take it. He chose war. He didn't do what Kazakhstan did.
He didn't do what South Africa did. He didn't do what Ukraine did. He--he didn't say,
`Come in and look and see what we have.' He was engaged in active deception. We'll
ultimately know a great deal about what took place.

I don't think that really answers the question. :LOL:
 
Back
Top