|
17 Mar 04 - 02:35 PM (#1139313) Subject: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller This is interesting. A clip from last Sunday, I believe. http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ clint |
|
17 Mar 04 - 02:52 PM (#1139325) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos Boy, Mister Rumsfeld is cute when he's lying through his teeth, huh? A |
|
17 Mar 04 - 03:00 PM (#1139328) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller I took a good deal of comfort from it. Uncharitable of me, I suppose, but what the hey, I don't have much fun, and this was a bright spot in my drab existence. clint |
|
17 Mar 04 - 03:08 PM (#1139335) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amergin I like how he looks when he is caught in a lie....such a darling. |
|
17 Mar 04 - 03:28 PM (#1139360) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: kendall It wouldn't work for me |
|
17 Mar 04 - 05:49 PM (#1139464) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Metchosin nor me either kendall. |
|
17 Mar 04 - 06:07 PM (#1139479) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller Don't know what to do; it works from here. Rummy is saying that the words "imminent threat" have only been used by critics, like you -- referring to the interviewer -- tne president and he have never... and he says "if you have any citations..." and indeed they have: two quotes from Rumsfeld himself. It fades with him dithering and fumbling with words. warms my heart. clint |
|
17 Mar 04 - 06:24 PM (#1139489) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Metchosin managed to see it using Explorer rather than Netscape and a different Mac. What a hoot! |
|
17 Mar 04 - 08:12 PM (#1139573) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,petr guess they cant complain about Kerry calling them liars. |
|
17 Mar 04 - 11:51 PM (#1139693) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Chief Chaos I guess it depends on what their definition of "saying" imminent is! And we all know that this is a political ploy of the left wing pinko commies to take it out of context like that. |
|
18 Mar 04 - 04:22 PM (#1140288) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: kendall It keeps locking up and stopping. |
|
18 Mar 04 - 04:48 PM (#1140312) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amergin nah...it's the fault of the liberal media... |
|
23 Mar 04 - 06:31 PM (#1144301) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick Hate to dig this old thread up, but just came across the most amazing accusation that the "imminent threat" quotes in this video were out of context and misleading. There's no direct link to the specific article, but it's called "Russert, Kennedy, Ignatieff misleading with 'imminent threat' evidence" and it's about half way down the page. SpinSanity "However, as we have previously observed, much of the Bush administration rhetoric in the buildup to the Iraq war argued that Saddam Hussein's regime was not yet an imminent threat - a phrase that has a very specific meaning of an enemy poised to attack - though the White House did describe Iraq as an 'urgent' and 'grave' threat. Indeed, during his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush specifically stated that the US could not wait until Iraq became an imminent threat. The only time a member of the Bush administration used the word 'imminent' in any direct sense actually came in September 2002, when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, 'Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.' Also, former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer and communications director Dan Bartlett both answered affirmatively to questions asserting that Bush believed Iraq was an imminent threat. This is hardly evidence that the "imminent" threat argument was at the heart of the Bush White House's case for war." This argument has always struck me as odd, since if I had heard the Administration declare Iraq an imminent threat, I would have at least chuckled to myself. It was clear that Iraq couldn't have delivered a firecracker to attack the US prior to the war, though they might have been able to provide a third party with something more dangerous if they had had anything. They were still a threat to their neighboring countries, of course, and that was an indirect threat to the US. I've just been accepting the accusation, assuming I didn't hear everything the Administration had to say. |
|
23 Mar 04 - 06:52 PM (#1144314) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,pdc Strick, here is a transcript of part of the video. Note the second last paragraph, in which Friedman repeats a previous quote of Rumsfeld's: 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. --- I think that "immediate threat" means "imminent," don't you? |
|
23 Mar 04 - 07:24 PM (#1144330) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick I remember I watched the clip. That's why this contradiction, from a site I visit fairly frequently and believe is not biased, was a surprise. Here are the relevant text of the paragraphs Freidman quotes more in context (note the speech is answering questions raised by critics which are shown in italics in the original document I've bolded the quote Meet the Press used): "Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent—that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. Before Operation Desert Storm in 1991, the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. The experts were flat wrong. When the U.S. got on the ground, it found the Iraqi's were probably six months to a year away from having a nuclear weapon – not 5 to 7 years. We do not know today precisely how close he is to having a deliverable nuclear weapon. What we do know is that he has a sizable appetite for them, that he has been actively and persistently pursuing them for more than 20 years, and that we allow him to get them at our peril. Moreover, let's say he is 5-7 years from a deliverable nuclear weapon. That raises the question: 5-7 years from when? From today? From 1998, when he kicked out the inspectors? Or from earlier, when inspectors were still in country? There is no way of knowing except from the ground, unless one believes what Saddam Hussein says." "There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq... Some argue that North Korea and Iran are more immediate threats than Iraq. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons, and is developing missiles that will be able to reach most of the continental United States. Iran has stockpiles of chemical weapons, is developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The question is asked: why not deal with them first?" The context is clear. Not that Iraq was an imminent threat per se, but that it's threat was more imminent than North Korea and Iran as some claim. That was perfectly true true at the time. I don't see that the statement from SpinSanity I quoted is contradicted by this in the least (my quote above looses their links to the full text of Rumsfeld's speech - you can see the whole text there if you're interested). The quotes Meet the Press used ARE out of context. Given what was said over all by the Administration, I've got to believe the whole "imminent threat" debate is crap. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 01:37 AM (#1144530) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller I thought that the first Rumsfeld quote, ..."I would not be so certain." left some wiggle room, but the second one, "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.'" pretty well nails him. The "immediate threat" quote in Spinsanity is a quote from Scott McClellan speaking of a threat to Turkey, which apparently was taken out of context by some; the "immediate threat" quote on 60 minutes was a quote from Rummy speaking of a threat to the US. And he could have said "That's out of context" instead of fumbling. He's used to public speaking. clint |
|
24 Mar 04 - 06:48 AM (#1144683) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Teribus Guest pdc, "I think that "immediate threat" means "imminent," don't you?" Short answer, no I don't. An "immediate threat" suggests you do something about it now, an "imminent threat" suggests you should have done something about it yesterday. Love reading your posts Strick, I believe you have made your point here very clearly, and very well. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 09:53 AM (#1144822) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick "And he could have said 'That's out of context' instead of fumbling. He's used to public speaking." Clint, he was ambushed. I went through a period of about 3 years during which I spoke publicly some 200 times. I wouldn't have been able to refute an out of context quote from something I said 18 months before without the text of the statement in front of me. Heck, I remember being ambushed this way over some work I had done while I was on the stand in at a State regulatory hearing. I knew what they said happened wasn't true, but it wasn't until 30 minutes after I got off the stand that I was able to sort through my memory so I could explain what I had done. I'm sure I looked like a deer in the headlights for a minute or two, the hot seat's no fun. I realize Rummy is infinitely more professional at this than I ever was, but I'm sympathetic. "'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.' pretty well nails him." I can't agree, though I'll freely admit it's a matter of interpretation. The speech is clearly laid out in the "some people say" rhetorical form and he's responding to that. Rumsfeld quotes "some people" saying North Korea, etc. are a "more imminent threat" than Iraq without agreeing with them on explicitly on the "more" and implicitly on the "imminent threat" part. My reading is that even to the extent you think the threat from those countries is imminent, he'd still consider Iraq more of a threat for the reasons he states. IMO, as I say, but I believe the way to see the statement, particularly given the greater context of the Administration's repeated assertions that Iraq could not be allowed to become a threat. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM (#1145009) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller "I believe the way to see the statement, particularly given the greater context of the Administration's repeated assertions that Iraq could not be allowed to become a threat." Well, seems to me that makes it worse. That's the philosophy of "Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out." Because there's no end to potential threats. There's an old cop saying "If you see a guy carrying aguitar with a dog following him, arrest him. If he ain't done something, he's going to," but it's supposed to be a joke. Alt least a semi-joke. clint |
|
24 Mar 04 - 01:56 PM (#1145012) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick "Well, seems to me that makes it worse. That's the philosophy of 'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out.'" Funny, I thought the argument was over whether the Administration lied about Iraq being an "imminent threat". No one said you had to support the war, just that anyone who says they were mislead by this particular claim has no one to blame for it but themselves. It didn't happen. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 08:09 PM (#1145331) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller Well, I thought it an interesting argument. "He's not a lying scoundrel, he's a murderous scoundrel," so to speak. And saying he didn't mean Iraq is an imminent, threat, he just said it was the most imminent threat is making a distinction without much difference. clint |
|
24 Mar 04 - 08:14 PM (#1145335) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,petr 'just that anyone who says they were mislead by this particular claim has no one to blame for it but themselves. It didn't happen.' great, its the fault of the average joe blow, who bought all the propaganda like the uraninum cakes from Niger that BUsh famously included in those 16words in the state of the union which that turned out to be false (and which resulted in someone from the white house exposing a cia agent who just happened to be the wife of the ambassador that exposed the uranium story) - oh wait, its the fault of the intelligence community, lets cut the crap - from day one bush and the neocons (wolfowitz, pearl and cheney wanted Saddam out) That fact has been attested to by dick Clark, O'Neill and was no secret to anyone watching the run up to the war - after the Iraqis pretty much gave in to all the inspections then the US said they wanted regime change anyway. I for one supported the war. NOt because I bought the line about WMDs but out of humanitarian reasons, that the Iraqi may be better off although ultimately that depends on the final cost. lets face it though, whether Rumsfeld lied or exaggerated the imminent threat, or not (although in the UK they made a big fuss about 45min weapons system) they spun the facts and took advantage of the shock of 911. GOEBBELS said a lie repeated 50 times becomes the truth (heck Churchill said something similar) when surveys by National Geographic show that 80% of young americans 18-24 cant find Iraq on the map, and 20% cant find the US on the map, one can hardly be surprised its so easy to pull the wool over their eyes. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 08:48 PM (#1145358) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick "'He's not a lying scoundrel, he's a murderous scoundrel,' so to speak. And saying he didn't mean Iraq is an imminent, threat, he just said it was the most imminent threat is making a distinction without much difference." Actually, Clint, he said it was a more of a threat than two other countries someone else said were imminent threats. I know that's hard for someone who isn't used to formal logic to follow, but yes, it's a world of difference. Your scoundrel comment is doesn't follow from anything logical, and I'm just taking that as slander. petr, just as the famous 16 words said Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, which the Brits have never backed off from, instead of Niger (there are other countries in Africa), it's clear from the context of Rumsfeld's speech that, at least in the speech Meet the Press ambushed him on, he didn't say Iraq was an imminent threat per se. I'll buy they tied Iraq to 9/11 more than it deserved, but the "imminent threat" accusation, as it's put forward most places, simply isn't true. |
|
24 Mar 04 - 09:38 PM (#1145409) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller That there "scoundrel comment" was meant to be sort of an analogy - unless you think it's a metaphor; I in't too clear on them things - and I got it from wherehyou say "the Administration's repeated assertions that Iraq could not be allowed to become a threat." The which I taken, in my iggorant way, to mean "They ain't done nothing and we better shoot them before they do." The metaphor part is where I talked about you getting him off the hook for lying by saying he done something worse. Unless it's an analogy. It's sort of what they call a manner of speaking. Might be it's a parable? clint |
|
24 Mar 04 - 10:01 PM (#1145419) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick What ever. All I was discussing was this particular accusation of lying. No matter how guilty you think the Administration is of something else, it doesn't automatically make them guilty of this "imminent threat" crap. You don't get to ignore the facts because they're inconsistent with what you want to believe. As to the pre-emptive strike thing, maybe you can help me with that. See what's confusing me is this Clarke guy who says "your government didn't do enough". From what I've read what he was proposing was a pre-emptive strike on Afghanistan prior to 9/11, you know on a poor country that had never done anything to hurt us. It wouldn't have prevented 9/11; the people responsible for 9/11 were already in in place and would have used an attack as a justification of what they intended to do anyway. The international community wouldn't have been in favor of a pre-emptive attack on Afghanistan; the UN would never have gone for it, nor would most of our allies prior to 9/11. So the Administration is damned for rejecting the military force Clarke proposed, and trying address the problem diplomatically. Seems you argue the opposite for Iraq. How do you reconcile the two? |
|
24 Mar 04 - 10:18 PM (#1145427) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,pdc Whoo! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin again? |
|
24 Mar 04 - 10:28 PM (#1145434) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick No problem, pdc. If this isn't out of context, if Rummy was saying immient threat this and imminent threat that all over the place, then it must be possible to find dozens of other cases where he said it. His speeches are publically available. Where are the all other quotes and why didn't Meet the Press use them? |
|
24 Mar 04 - 11:22 PM (#1145466) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,pdc More importantly, Strick -- why did he deny that he had ever said it? |
|
24 Mar 04 - 11:34 PM (#1145468) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller Don't know if you're asking me, but I'm against pre-emptive strikes on anybody. Afghanistan, Iraq, or that annoying twit down the block who parks his car and leaves the stereo turned up to eleven. Pre-emptive strikes can work in the short term but sooner or later you'll attack the wrong country or the wrong man. Think about it, for godsake. I believe Clarke's stories about his conversations with Bush & cronies, but his opinions are his own. Don't swallow the book whole, don't reject it whole. Any book. clint |
|
25 Mar 04 - 09:07 AM (#1145729) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick We agree on that Clint. "More importantly, Strick -- why did he deny that he had ever said it?" pdc, I only see him denying what people imply he said. I've belabored the point already, but, heck, look at this and see if it helps. It's essentially the same statement Rumsfeld made but on a different topic. Some people say that Bob is taller than Bill, but I say Bill is taller. Can we accept that there's no difference between the "er" ending and "more" except grammar? Does it say I think either person is tall in any absolute sense? Is this statement any less true if neither Bill nor Bob are over 4' 6" tall and don't have the slightest chance of playing for the Lakers? |
|
25 Mar 04 - 09:13 AM (#1145738) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos The statement " no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq..." is not identical to the statement "Iraq is an imminent threat to the U.S.", but it is realistically so close you couldn't even drive a Republican between the two. Yes, you can parse distinctions. But in terms of public rhetoric, that would just constitute further evasion, and so it is being perceived. A |
|
25 Mar 04 - 09:38 AM (#1145750) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Thomas the Rhymer Wow Strick... --See what's confusing me is this Clarke guy who says "your government didn't do enough".-- "this Clarke guy"... hmmmmm. A thirty year civil servant of top calliber and excellent standing, with a superb record, and an excellent reputation... worked continuously through the last four administrations in top level positions... Boy, you sure know how to pick 'em Strick... My hunch is that Clark was being 'squeezed' by the Bush administration... and could not speak out for fear of loosing his job. And being a team player, he was forced to 'go along' with the charade in the White House. This would have generated a great deal of resentment... especially in a man of admirable stature. So, upon retiring, he's got a bone to pick with 'George'... and I for one, believe him. Personally, I think Clarke would make a far better president than 'George'... I guess it is up to the 'unsmearable reverables'... ttr |
|
25 Mar 04 - 09:50 AM (#1145761) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick "'this Clarke guy'... hmmmmm. A thirty year civil servant of top calliber and excellent standing, with a superb record, and an excellent reputation... worked continuously through the last four administrations in top level positions..." This Clarke guy who was a career technocrat bureaucrat obsessed with a particular hobby horse no one, no one in either of the past two administrations listened to and who's only motivations could be that he was passed over for promotion to Assistant Secretary and he wants to sell his book? We are talking about the same guy, right? I not sure the two views of Clarke are that exclusive. Ignore that. This is one where Clint and I agree. What Clarke was proposing was a pre-emptive war with Afghanistan before 9/11. Neither Clinton nor Bush took him up on it. It wouldn't have prevented 9/11. How does that help his credibility? |
|
25 Mar 04 - 11:49 AM (#1145867) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST Wow, we're all missing the point here. The implications of the statement "Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States" depend on what the meaning of the word "is" is. Seems to me Rummy and his apologists are playing exactly the same "it's not technically a lie" game that Clinton was skewered for. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 12:02 PM (#1145889) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick Been waiting for that one. Read the whole speech and the links listed in the SpinSanity article and tell me where any policy maker in the Administration said "Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States", those words, and we can discuss the meaning of the word "is". Until then consider this. I am a "more imminent threat" to you than my cat is, both because he's been declawed and because I am a very large man with a violent temper, it's the Gospel truth, but given that I don't know who or where you are, that doesn't say you should really consider me an "imminent threat", does it? |
|
25 Mar 04 - 12:51 PM (#1145949) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos Strick: Apparently Rumsfeld did say that " no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq...". And if that is not stating literally that it IS such a threat, it is very clearly leaving it there as an obvious intentional implication. So this is just slimey nitpicking -- he was supporting the invasion of a country, American and Iraqi blood in the sand, and he was just being philosophically relative about things? Give me one large break. A |
|
25 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM (#1145958) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick Read the whole of the relevant part of the speech again, Amos: "There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction—Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater and more immediate threat to the security of our people, and the stability of the world, than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq... Some argue that North Korea and Iran are more immediate threats than Iraq. North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons, and is developing missiles that will be able to reach most of the continental United States. Iran has stockpiles of chemical weapons, is developing ballistic missiles of increasing range, and is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. The question is asked: why not deal with them first?" He was explaining why, given that others say the US should deal with North Korea or Iran first, the US should consider Iraq more dangerous. "So this is just slimey nitpicking -- he was supporting the invasion of a country, American and Iraqi blood in the sand..." When you condemn Clinton for ignoring UN attempts at peacekeeping Bosnia and coercing NATO to attack them to over throw their government, I'll consider your accusation of my nitpicking. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 01:11 PM (#1145969) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos I don't know enough about the Bosnian situation, to tell you the truth, to condemn or commend Clinton's choices there. But I will tell you that I see no connection between the one and the other. Why should they be coupled? But I do take back the slimey part, cuz I know you're a good guy. Point is, in his explanation, he was asserting that Iraq was an immediate threat. A |
|
25 Mar 04 - 01:38 PM (#1145993) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick They're coupled in that their circumstances are so similar that if you condemn one you must condemn the other. And I must disagree with your interpretation for the reasons stated. Even at that, saying it once in such a debateable way in a speech none of us ever heard hardly constitutes telling the public that Iraq was an "imminent threat". |
|
25 Mar 04 - 02:37 PM (#1146043) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST Okay, as I said, it's not technically a lie. Now, Strick does the fact that you are a more imminent threat than your cat mean that someone needs to attack you? It is clear to all but the willfully obtuse that Rumsfeld was making a case for Iraq as an ABSOLUTE threat, not just a RELATIVE one. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 02:56 PM (#1146069) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick No, Guest, it's clear to anyone one with a ninth grade reading level and above he wasn't, particularly if they read all that was said. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 03:22 PM (#1146090) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST Apparently, a vast majority of Americans have a less-than-ninth grade reading level, and I promise you that Rummy and company count on that when they oh so carefully craft their statements. "Let's see...how can we intentionally mislead our citizens with statements that are technically true?" Luckily, you see through this, so I guess they're good leaders for you. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:12 PM (#1146120) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick The average adult in the US reads at an 8th grade level and news papers are written at the 4th grade level (I think they still are, there was talk of dropping them to the 3rd grade level). Technically correct? More than that, but Rumsfeld is known to talk a bit above the crowd. Remember this quote? "Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because 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." It makes perfect sense to any one familiar with higher level philosophy, logic, mathematics or even database design. He'll never live it down, though. Peace. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:17 PM (#1146126) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller When a man like Rumsfeld makes a public statement, it is not a demonstratrion of shades of meaning; he wants to move you. Seeing it in terms of logic is not as useful as seeing it in terms of propaganda and semantics. Wasn't it Bush I that said his opponent was a card-carrying ACLU member? Whoever said it, he didn't mean it as a simple statement of fact (though it no doubt was). What he meant was "A leftist bleeding-heart pinko big-spending soft on crime (fill in your own cliche) liberal twit. And if you associated it with McCarthy's "card-carrying Communist" he wouldn't mind. But his ass was covered, legally, because he could say it was "a simple statement of fact." I heard Ari Fleischer, in answer to a question about the killing of innocent Iraqis, say that the real innocents are the victims of 911. Logically he's stated an opinion unrelated to the question; what he means you to think is "There are no innocent Iraquis; they all deserve killing because they're responsible for 911." And you know it. But his ass is covered. clint |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:23 PM (#1146131) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick OK, so what did Rumsfeld mean by that famous quote? And is only Republicans who do what you say or politicians in general? Are you sure? :D |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:28 PM (#1146135) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller "It makes perfect sense to any one familiar with higher level philosophy, logic, mathematics or even database design." It makes sense to anyone who reads it carefully, even without a PhD.. But it's not particularly useful in this case. I assumed he meant "It's hard to prove a negative," but who knows? clint |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:33 PM (#1146139) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick No. You can only look for answers to the things you realize you don't know. For the unknown unknowns, you have to rely on a systematic search for anomalies. Like Sherlock Holmes and the dog that didn't bark in the night. Then, too, it's really important to separate out your known unknowns from unknown knowns, because you deal with them so differently. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:35 PM (#1146141) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Thomas the Rhymer Strick... or may I call you 'Custer'... seems to me you're fighting for your life... nitpicking details, but missing the forest for the trees... 'George' has sacked America's crediblity around the world, as well as the economy here at home... He has single handedly destabilized the world's peacetime ... He's thumbed his nose at the UN, which is a charitable and democratic organization that the US -had- much diplomatic influence over ... he had all the info he needed to sense trouble in the 6 months before 9/11, which he chose to ignore... His agenda was clearly to strike Iraq from his first days in office ...and it is this 'a priori' adgenda that allowed him in his own mind to 'shift priorities' from the known and impending danger of al Qaida to his father's nemesis Saddam. Pure vanity couldn't have been more wrong. And worst of all, by doing what he's done, he has probably exascerbated the terrorist impulses around the world, thus inciting greater anarchy... ...and when 9/11 scared the living bejesus out of us, 'George' 'motivated' us with his slight of hand trick... replacing bin Laden with Saddam... thus 'allowing' the US public to be terrified into a feeling of justifiable agression towards Saddam, 'the toothless tiger'. And al Qaida regroups. This is just plain bad foriegn policy. Pick apart the rhetoric as you wish... we all know what Rummy was implying... and like it or not, most of us fell for it... and now the indignation is the reciprical of it's previous expression... Strick, though you may win every single skermish, the big picture yet escapes your arguements... ttr |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:36 PM (#1146143) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,petr its funny that the republicans attacked Clinton's semantics over the Monica affair (an issue that was essentially no ones business) but now theyre taking the same stance over taking the country to war. also when Clinton fired missiles at AlQaeda training camps in Afghanistan - they said 'wag the dog' the link below would explain why a majority of Americans still think there was link between Iraq and 911 even though there was no proof of such a link. http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do pageID=world_home&articleID=1559410 and if that doesnt work here it is. Democrats compile list of 237 'misleading' administration statements on Iraq WASHINGTON (CP) - It was released with little fanfare and attracted scant notice. But a compilation of statements on the alleged threat posed by Iraq made by President George W. Bush and four top officials provides an eye-popping look at how public opinion was shaped months before the war - and after. The list of 237 "misleading" comments by key administration officials in 125 public appearances was released last week by Democratic staff attached to the House of Representatives government reform committee. The White House has said any misstatements were just a small part of an "overwhelming" case against Iraq. But they paint a picture of a well-organized campaign, said Joseph Cirincione, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who reviewed the reported for accuracy and fairness. "It's just overwhelming how many times they said things that just weren't true," Cirincione said in an interview Thursday. "Putting them all together shows how comprehensive, sweeping and unrelenting they were. "This was not a couple of statements in a couple of speeches. This was a very well-executed strategy to attract support for the war and to scare the American public." Last July, Bush was forced to admit that he shouldn't have said Iraq was trying to buy uranium for nuclear weapons in his January 2003 state of the union address. And he was forced this year to call a public inquiry into faulty intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities after months of questions about why no weapons of mass destruction had been found. But the inquiry will likely not examine the extent to which intelligence was exaggerated by U.S. officials and it won't report until next year, well after the Nov. 2 election. The report divides statements into four categories: Eleven claimed Iraq posed an urgent threat, 81 exaggerated Iraq's nuclear activities, 84 statements overstated chemical and biological weapons and 61 misrepresented Iraq's ties to al-Qaida. "Most of the statements in the database were misleading because they expressed certainty where none existed or failed to acknowledge the doubts of intelligence officials," said the report. "Ten of the statements were simply false." Most of the declarations, 161, were made in the buildup to war. They began at least a year before the invasion on March 19, 2003, when Vice-President Dick Cheney stated: "We know they have biological and chemical weapons." And as late as Jan. 22, 2004, Cheney insisted "there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government." No evidence of such a link has been put forward, but surveys suggest a majority of Americans still believe there was and that Iraq had a hand in the horrific terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The month-long period with the most misleading statements, said the report, occurred just before Congress voted to back Bush's invasion plan last October. Three days before the vote, Bush gave a speech in Cincinnati, Ohio, with 11 misleading statements there alone, said the report. Overall, 55 of the comments are attributed to him and 51 to Cheney. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is credited with 52. He told Americans that within "a week, a month" Saddam could give his weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists, which could use them to kill "30,000 or 100,000" Americans. Secretary of State Colin Powell often used qualifying language in public statements and those weren't included. But 50 times he didn't. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice is credited with the fewest misleading statements, 29, but the highest number that were false, with eight. They include assertions that the White House didn't know the intelligence community had doubts about Bush's assertion that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. CIA Director George Tenet has said that intelligence officials never described Iraq as urgent threat and the White House later admitted the intelligence agency provided repeated warnings about the uranium claim. The report, prepared for Democrat Representative Henry Waxman, says statements were considered misleading if they conflicted with what intelligence officers knew at the time, not those that appear mistaken in hindsight. Democratic staff used several sources to determine the intelligence available to White House officials, including parts of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that have been released to the public and Tenet's public statement in February. © The Canadian Press, 2004 |
|
25 Mar 04 - 04:41 PM (#1146148) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick You mean just as many of the things these Democrats claim are untrue? www.spinsanity.com |
|
25 Mar 04 - 05:14 PM (#1146175) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST "And is only Republicans who do what you say or politicians in general? Are you sure? :D" "You mean just as many of the things these Democrats claim are untrue?" Strick, as someone who (as you have repeatedly pointed out) is so well versed in formal logic, surely you realize that these statements are textbook examples of the "Tu Quoque" specialization of the Argumentum ad Hominem. You are clearly very smart. So are a lot of people here. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 05:45 PM (#1146191) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick The first line was more of a reducto ad absurdum than ad hominem. I wasn't attacking the arguer, only his premise. Likewise, my reply to you wasn't really an attack on the Democrats (your appeal to authority?) as a repetition of the point I've seen many if not most of these 237 'misleading' statements refuted in the link I listed. Thomas, I don't mind you reaching a conclusion half the country disagrees with. Just don't quote evidence like this to support it. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 05:50 PM (#1146194) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,Clint Keller " OK, so what did Rumsfeld mean by that famous quote? " He meant the US should attack Iraq pre-emptively. The administration had a terrible desire to attack Iraq. As you know. petr's got it pretty well. "And is only Republicans who do what you say or politicians in general? Are you sure?" Politicians, advertisers, posters to mudcat and humanity in general. And _tu quoque_. I know that's hard for someone who isn't used to Latin to follow, but you can look it up. See? I can do it too. Yes I'm sure. clint. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 06:08 PM (#1146206) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick Talk to guest, Clint. He quotes Latin. |
|
25 Mar 04 - 06:37 PM (#1146225) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,pdc Strick -- upthread you stated, "What Clarke was proposing was a pre-emptive war with Afghanistan before 9/11." Now, before I get into the pot-kettle-black thing, could you please present some evidence for that odd statement? |
|
25 Mar 04 - 08:12 PM (#1146295) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Thomas the Rhymer Strick... "Thomas, I don't mind you reaching a conclusion half the country disagrees with. Just don't quote evidence like this to support it". Awesome... Half the country disagrees with me? OK man... evidence. While you are polishing up on your debating techniques, and trying to get the rust off of the state machinery... the rest of 'the country' is digging a little deeper into Bush's modus opperandi... Soon, the 'half that disagrees with me' will be MINE, ALL MINE!!! HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!! Ahem... sorry 'bout that... How's about's we just retire Bush in '04. Whatdya think... High bias, or 'snow' tred? ;^) ttr |
|
25 Mar 04 - 08:38 PM (#1146307) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Strick "Now, before I get into the pot-kettle-black thing, could you please present some evidence for that odd statement?" Nothing I've seen on the web (I haven't looked, though). Reports on NPR that Clarke proposed multiple attacks on Afghanistan and Al Qaeda, which both Clinton and Bush both rejected in favor of diplomatic means. You're right, war may be to strong a word. Pre-emtive attack might be a better word. Thomas, if we had kept it funny, I wouldn't have made such a fool out of myself. Thanks. You can make fun of me any time. Is anyone polling on exactly what I said? Doubt it, but here are the results of the lastest Newsweek poll: Poll: Bush and Kerry Neck and Neck The voter's poll is a statiscial deadheat and Bush stil leads with people on terrorism and Iraq by what could be called a wide margin: "Voters are far more likely to trust Bush than Kerry on these issues(terrorism and Iraq - sls). On terrorism, 56 percent of all voters would prefer the leadership of the incumbent president, 33 percent would prefer to see Kerry at the helm. On Iraq, Bush beats Kerry 53 percent to 38 percent." |
|
26 Mar 04 - 07:17 AM (#1146562) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST Which is why Bush is working so damn hard to keep all his Iraq lies buried, and why his apologists are working so hard to make his intentional misleads "technically true". If he loses people's confidence on Iraq and terror, he's f'in toast (what's he gonna run on - the economy? jobs? education? the environment? nope, the pony is losing his single trick) |
|
26 Mar 04 - 09:00 AM (#1146629) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos If? Why would we place confidence on a unilateral war waged for falsified reasons? With no responsible planning for afterwards? With inadequate human intel on the ground? Confidence? It is a farce among wars, a slapdash amateur war, a juvenile war. A |
|
26 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM (#1146810) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: CarolC Speaking of Rummy, has anyone seen this one yet, Thanks For the Memories (It has Rummy shaking hands with Saddam. My apologies if this has been posted before.) |
|
26 Mar 04 - 04:24 PM (#1146996) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST Don't apologize, this should be posted everywhere multiple times. Appalling. |
|
26 Mar 04 - 04:41 PM (#1147004) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: Amos That's a hell of a slide show. A |
|
26 Mar 04 - 07:38 PM (#1147119) Subject: RE: BS: Rummy caught on video From: GUEST,petr thanks CarolC, that would be funny if it wasnt sad. |