Reply With Quote
your post? or the one you stole, thief?
But yoni... uh huh huh ....you're a security guard...duh....
your post? or the one you stole, thief?
It's my post and the information is thoroughly linked and supported.
Like I said, if you can't...
The WH (includes Rummy) told us that we needed to go to war with Iraq because they were a threat to us because they had WMDs. We went over there, blew some up, but never found WMDs. Then we were told by the WH that Saddam, the evil genius, moved the WMDs before we arrived, and do ents containing communications with "high-level" officers in Saddam's regime supported this theory. When asked about where they were moved to, the WH avoids the question and feeds us the line that what we are really doing is deposing an evil empire. If we know that they moved them, and we know where they were moved to, why can't we go find them to vindicate our original reason for going to Iraq? The answer is simple, we never knew for sure Iraq had WMDs. The WH just used it as an excuse.
Furthermore, it is not my job to prove the WH lied, it is the WH's job to prove to us that they were telling the truth. Like I said before, the truth will come out.
duh....dd.d.duh .....d..duh
but they didn't lie......
Oh Gee, you forgot to mention the 9/11 connection.
Well the first sentence kinda shows what you really do must of the time.duh....dd.d.duh .....d..duh
but they didn't lie......
Oh Gee, you forgot to mention the 9/11 connection.
and the second is exactly what say in every post.
and the third shows your real ignorance.
Hey there xrayhorsy,
Nice to see my supporters,
at least what I have left of them,
still here defendin' my lies for me.
Thanks fellas.
God Bless America
Now who's deflecting?
My post addressed a specific point. That being that Secretary Rumsfeld lied when he said: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."
This quote is the "proof" Mr. McGovern offered when he accused Secretary Rumsfeld of lying.
Unfortunately for Mr. McGovern, he failed to read the quote in the context of the entire interview between Secretary Rumsfeld and George Stephanopolous.
The rest of your rant above is largely based on similar mischaracterizations. But, I'd be happy if you'd address them one at a time. Did Secretary Rumsfeld lie in his statement to George Stephanopolous?
Once we've established that, we'll move on to the rest of your rambling.
I think I have come to the conclusion that I should admit
that I am a liar.
, I'd be the most successful liar in American Presidential history.
And noone could take that away from me.
I knew I could do somethin' right.
Mission Accomplished
SO you think Rummy's not lying because instead of saying "I know exactly where they are," he used language that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the US government had good intel that WMDs were in a certain geographical area, and that we should act on that intel? What's the difference?
The difference is that's not what my post said and you apparently didn't read.
The rest of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's response to Stephonopolous' question was: "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."
That's the part of the quote everyone calling him a liar keeps leaving off.
That's what he said to give himself some wiggle-room when (oops) we find no WMDs. Talk about luck.
I know I said that there was WMDs, but I also said they might be gone when we arrived. Either way, I was right.
But he said it in the same breath.
Whether you think he was hedging his answer is a debatable point but, saying that Rumsfeld lied because said he knew where the WMD's were when he didn't, isn't consistent with the facts.
But he did say he knew were they were. You give more credit to his "out" than to his assertion of where they were.
Right before, and in the same response, he said they may have been dispersed and may be gone when we get there based on satellite images of truck traffic at the sites.
What's your point?
The point is we went to war because we "knew" they had WMDs and we "knew" where they were. Rummy was just covering the WH's ass with his "but, they've probably all been moved by now" bull . It's more of the same ad hoc crap we've been hearing for 3 years now.
But see, if there were proof of that -- beyond the regular "it's-that-way-because-I-think-the-worst-of-this-administration" -- McGovern would have offered that instead of the lie that wasn't a lie.
The facts are that the entire planet "KNEW" Saddam Hussein had WMD's. The administration believed that had them located but also knew it was possible they had been moved.
Unless you can counter that assertion with some fact to the contrary, your position the administration lied is just the biased characterization of someone who wants to believe the administration lied.
Fact: No WMDs have been found, but we have heard several excuses from BushCo.
But the subject of this thread was whether or not Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld lied about it.
I believe the facts show he didn't. You've yet to present facts that demonstrate otherwise.
In terms of debate, this thread fails.
Moderators in a real debate do not allow circular arguments.
I need only point to this 3rd page.
There are very easy ways to be upfront with the American people. Please, dont pretend the WH tries in the least to be anywhere near honest or objective.
"But, how could they show us without telling Al-Queda, dumbass! N00b...sux0r!"
Youre right there. Seems to be another convenient catch-22, much along the lines of "We know where the WMDs are, but then we took pics of some trucks, they may not be there anymore"
Thats a classic, ultra-over-used circular statement. It can neither be proved or disproved. Same could be said for God. Soooooo, does that mean the WH is asking us to take this matter on faith?
Im not very religious.
He said we know they have WMD and we know where they are [THE REASON FOR GOING TO WAR!!], but let me add this excuse at the end of my assertion in support of invading Iraq in case we show up and we're wrong. If that's not a lie, it's at least insufficient justification for going to war. Either way, your heroes in the WH are ing idiots.
Using a metaphor, this is like if a bankrobber was released because there was no money in the safe. Rummy told everyone that the WMD's would be there, Condi, Dubya, Cheney, and Powell all publicly concurred. When the WMD's weren't there Powell resigned, the rest of the NeoCons should have followed suit.
As did everyone else on the face of the planet.
I suggest you revisit the President's State of the Union Address from 2003 and his address to the nation on the invasion of Iraq that same year.
Well, it wasn't the only justification and if they were idiots for not knowing Iraq didn't have WMD's then so was everyone else.
Spoken like a true Clinton fan!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
