Rumsfeld Gets SLAMMED on Meet the Press

[5stringJeff]

Yeah yeah, Al Qaeda connections, democrats thought Iraq was a good idea, yadda yadda, this wasn't the point of my thread, so I can't and won't respond to a dozen varied "Oh yeah, well Kerry..." comments when we're talking about Donald Rumsfeld.

And I guess I don't want to talk about it anymore. It seems that when he said "I never said Iraq was an immediate threat" and then was read the statement "Iraq is the most immediate threat posed of all the terrorist states to American security", you people didn't find the two statements incompatible. Apparently "most immediate threat" to you people means "immediate in relative terms, but not actually immediate". Which, to any person with half a brain, is the most preposterous piece of crap. Ever. If this black and white, clear cut, unbelievably simple contradiction can be scewed by arguing the definition of "most immediate threat" to mean "not necessarily an immediate threat", then it is honestly not at all worthwhile to continue arguing with such pigheaded individuals who won't admit when they're wrong. Ever. And any circumstances. How very frustrating.

OK, NE, I will concede that Rumsfield said what you say he said.

What exactly is the point? The mandate of the American people, who turned out in droves on Tuesday, is to continue to fight the WOT the way it's been fought. That means continuing on in Iraq. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

 

[007]

OK, NE, I will concede that Rumsfield said what you say he said.

What exactly is the point? The mandate of the American people, who turned out in droves on Tuesday, is to continue to fight the WOT the way it's been fought. That means continuing on in Iraq. So I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

What he's getting at is he's pissed off as hell that President Bush got reelected, and now he's looking for needles in the hay stack that he can bring here and bitch and cry about for the next four years. Or until he gets tired of the conservatives on here telling him he's a fucking nut case liberal and should shut his whiney cake hole and get over it.

 

[Merlin1047]

Which, to any person with half a brain, is the most preposterous piece of crap.

Reckon this explains a lot of your attitudes. You may actually be in possession of an entire brain, but you obviously only use the LEFT half.

 

[musicman]

Yeah yeah, Al Qaeda connections, democrats thought Iraq was a good idea, yadda yadda, this wasn't the point of my thread, so I can't and won't respond to a dozen varied "Oh yeah, well Kerry..." comments when we're talking about Donald Rumsfeld.

And I guess I don't want to talk about it anymore. It seems that when he said "I never said Iraq was an immediate threat" and then was read the statement "Iraq is the most immediate threat posed of all the terrorist states to American security", you people didn't find the two statements incompatible. Apparently "most immediate threat" to you people means "immediate in relative terms, but not actually immediate". Which, to any person with half a brain, is the most preposterous piece of crap. Ever. If this black and white, clear cut, unbelievably simple contradiction can be scewed by arguing the definition of "most immediate threat" to mean "not necessarily an immediate threat", then it is honestly not at all worthwhile to continue arguing with such pigheaded individuals who won't admit when they're wrong. Ever. And any circumstances. How very frustrating.

The problem is that you don't hold Democrats and Republicans to similar standards. You're inconsistent in your criticism. For Republicans, it's the fine-toothed comb and the microscope; for Democrats, it's "yeah yeah" and "yadda yadda". Shoots your credibility all to hell.

 

[nakedemperor]

Reckon this explains a lot of your attitudes. You may actually be in possession of an entire brain, but you obviously only use the LEFT half.

Touche =)

 

[nakedemperor]

The problem is that you don't hold Democrats and Republicans to similar standards. You're inconsistent in your criticism. For Republicans, it's the fine-toothed comb and the microscope; for Democrats, it's "yeah yeah" and "yadda yadda". Shoots your credibility all to hell.

You could hardly characterize my opinions of Democrats by quoting a post in which I was waving off comments that would have, once again, broadened the topic of discussion so far that everyone would have forgotten what we were talking about...again. I was trying to avoid that with the yaddas.

Look, your critique is two-faced. It implies that you (and the rest of the conservatives) don't do the same thing. Of course I'm harder on the conservatives, I'm a liberal. And you're 500% more likely to criticize a liberal because you're a conservative (if the opportunity to present itself appears). The reason that liberals do an inordinate amout of criticism of conservative policy and soundbytes is because ALL of the policy that passes IS conservative. We can't extoll the merits of liberal legislation because every piece of legislation that is antithetical to the conservative agenda (naturally) gets shot down. So while I can sit here spewing conjecture over what would happen if the Democrats were in power, it would be merely that, conjecture. So, as it is, I'm very opposed to many of the things that the conservative legislative and exectutive (and soon to be judicial) accomplish. Therefore, a lot of the political dialogue from my end is very judgemental. If the Democrats had a majority and the presidency, you'd find yourself in a very similar position to the one that I'm in.

 

[freeandfun1]

You could hardly characterize my opinions of Democrats by quoting a post in which I was waving off comments that would have, once again, broadened the topic of discussion so far that everyone would have forgotten what we were talking about...again. I was trying to avoid that with the yaddas.

Look, your critique is two-faced. It implies that you (and the rest of the conservatives) don't do the same thing. Of course I'm harder on the conservatives, I'm a liberal. And you're 500% more likely to criticize a liberal because you're a conservative (if the opportunity to present itself appears). The reason that liberals do an inordinate amout of criticism of conservative policy and soundbytes is because ALL of the policy that passes IS conservative. We can't extoll the merits of liberal legislation because every piece of legislation that is antithetical to the conservative agenda (naturally) gets shot down. So while I can sit here spewing conjecture over what would happen if the Democrats were in power, it would be merely that, conjecture. So, as it is, I'm very opposed to many of the things that the conservative legislative and exectutive (and soon to be judicial) accomplish. Therefore, a lot of the political dialogue from my end is very judgemental. If the Democrats had a majority and the presidency, you'd find yourself in a very similar position to the one that I'm in.

You don't have a clue. :shocked:

 

[musicman]

You could hardly characterize my opinions of Democrats by quoting a post in which I was waving off comments that would have, once again, broadened the topic of discussion so far that everyone would have forgotten what we were talking about...again. I was trying to avoid that with the yaddas.

Look, your critique is two-faced. It implies that you (and the rest of the conservatives) don't do the same thing. Of course I'm harder on the conservatives, I'm a liberal. And you're 500% more likely to criticize a liberal because you're a conservative (if the opportunity to present itself appears). The reason that liberals do an inordinate amout of criticism of conservative policy and soundbytes is because ALL of the policy that passes IS conservative. We can't extoll the merits of liberal legislation because every piece of legislation that is antithetical to the conservative agenda (naturally) gets shot down. So while I can sit here spewing conjecture over what would happen if the Democrats were in power, it would be merely that, conjecture. So, as it is, I'm very opposed to many of the things that the conservative legislative and exectutive (and soon to be judicial) accomplish. Therefore, a lot of the political dialogue from my end is very judgemental. If the Democrats had a majority and the presidency, you'd find yourself in a very similar position to the one that I'm in.

I can't entirely agree with that, NE. I've never hesitated to point out that I am frankly baffled by some of President Bush's policies. By the same token, I'll tell anyone who cares to hear it that I consider Joe Lieberman a basically decent guy. In other words, I really try - though I may not always succeed - to be fair and consistent in my criticisms. I consider a loaded, biased approach to be intellectually dishonest, and damaging to an argument's credibility.

 

[nakedemperor]

I can't entirely agree with that, NE. I've never hesitated to point out that I am frankly baffled by some of President Bush's policies. By the same token, I'll tell anyone who cares to hear it that I consider Joe Lieberman a basically decent guy. In other words, I really try - though I may not always succeed - to be fair and consistent in my criticisms. I consider a loaded, biased approach to be intellectually dishonest, and damaging to an argument's credibility.

I don't want to start rattling off stuff about the Democrats I don't like just to legitimize myself in your eyes, but I guess it could be useful. Look, I think for this presidential election we were deciding between a dangerously indecisive leader and a dangerously incompetent leader. I'm capable of crossing the line, as it seems you are. But I don't think that because I'm a liberal means that an argument that D. Rumsfeld is blatantly attempting to change history in defense of indefensible positions on the justification to go to war is invalid. I think its very very important to criticize such blatant dishonesty, and I sincerely hope Rummy is replaced next spring.

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't want to start rattling off stuff about the Democrats I don't like just to legitimize myself in your eyes, but I guess it could be useful. Look, I think for this presidential election we were deciding between a dangerously indecisive leader and a dangerously incompetent leader. I'm capable of crossing the line, as it seems you are. But I don't think that because I'm a liberal means that an argument that D. Rumsfeld is blatantly attempting to change history in defense of indefensible positions on the justification to go to war is invalid. I think its very very important to criticize such blatant dishonesty, and I sincerely hope Rummy is replaced next spring.

but you are wanting us to admit he did something that he didn't, just to prove our "bi-partisanship". You will not admit, as many have pointed out, that his comment was that of the terrorist states, they presented the most immediate threat. That is different than, we have infomormation that if we do not act IMMIDIATELY they will attack us. Their threat was imminent and they presented the most immediate (as in most likely to come first) threat.

The Bush admin has made some errors in Iraq. They have admitted that and we (conservatives) have admitted that. Their biggest mistake was teir alignment with the ex-pat Iraqis (Chalabi), etc. We made the mistake of thinking the Baathist would not react like they did, etc. But that does not change the true nature of the use of the worlds imminent and immediate by Rumsfeld. Just because you are looking for something to blast him on, that does not mean it is okay to feign ignorance on your part. You are a bright person and you understand the use of words and how words can mean many different things just based on the context of their use.

 

[musicman]

I don't want to start rattling off stuff about the Democrats I don't like just to legitimize myself in your eyes, but I guess it could be useful. Look, I think for this presidential election we were deciding between a dangerously indecisive leader and a dangerously incompetent leader. I'm capable of crossing the line, as it seems you are. But I don't think that because I'm a liberal means that an argument that D. Rumsfeld is blatantly attempting to change history in defense of indefensible positions on the justification to go to war is invalid. I think its very very important to criticize such blatant dishonesty, and I sincerely hope Rummy is replaced next spring.

Well, I'm not suggesting that you should do ANYTHING to legitimize yourself in my eyes. Why should you give a shit what I, or anyone else thinks? I'm just saying that if you held Democrats up to the kind of parsing and definition-slicing you seem to reserve for Republicans, Dems wouldn't come out smelling like a rose, either. Treat like cases alike, is all I'm suggesting.

 

[nakedemperor]

Treat like cases alike, is all I'm suggesting.

Appreciated and duely noted

 

[musicman]

Appreciated and duely noted

 

[sagegirl]

Its time for the deception to stop. This blatant twisting and spinning. Watch this and hold on to you jaw 'cause you're HEAD will spin:

"You and a few other critics are the only ones I've heard use the phrase 'immediate threat', I didn't, the President didn't, and its become kind of folklore that that's what's happened."

The hosts go on to read him a few quotes including:

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

Who said the quote? Donald Rumsfeld.

Sorry Donny, you can't change history. As ashamed as you all are of what you've done in Iraq and how you went about getting there, and trust me, it is shameful, you have to at least OWN UP TO IT.

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

another great perspective on Rumsfelt was Frontlines "Rumsfelt's War" and in my mind an "immediate threat" would be even more dangerous than an "imminent threat" so... and by the way why did so many people get the idea that Iraq/Saddam posed a threat immediate or imminent??????....because it was the MESSAGE of the words that were spoken and that is clear.

 

[WeAreLegion]

I'm not trying to be abrasive here but since we're talking about quotes I may have one or two...

The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question--not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how.

I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out.

I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure...


...It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war.


John Kerry, October 2002

 

[Avatar4321]

and by the way why did so many people get the idea that Iraq/Saddam posed a threat immediate or imminent??????....

Because former Senator Edwards was out saying so and Senator Kerry was out saying Iraq had nukes. Dont even get me started on what Clinton was saying.

 

[Mariner]

words and their meaning reminds me of exactly one thing: Pres. Clinton trying to finesse Monica Lewinsky's allegations.

Why not just admit it? Your president made a very significant error in judgment. He was hoodwinked by Iraqi expatriates who had their own reasons for wanting an invasion of Iraq. This was made worse by his having already wanted to invade Iraq, based on the neoconservative arguments of Paul Wolfowitz and others. He then proceeded to cherry-pick the evidence. The New York Times had an incredible detailed piece a few weeks ago showing how the Energy Dept. knew that the aluminum rods which were the supposed "hard evidence" referred to by Rumsfelt, Powell and others were not appropriate for nuclear centrifuges, but the CIA didn't. The CIA knew that the Niger yellow cake story was false, but the Energy Dept. didn't. The administration purposefully took Energy's view on the rods and the CIA's view on the yellow cake, quashing dissent and refusing to share the evidence with the American people, a piece of secrecy necessary only because they knew their rationale would be shot down if people debated it openly, and then they would lose their excuse for invading.

According to today's headlines the mission is really accomplished over there, ain't it? Catastrophic misjudgement of the aftermath of invasion puts it mildly.

Mariner.

 

[freeandfun1]

....the mission is really accomplished over there, ain't it? Catastrophic misjudgement of the aftermath of invasion puts it mildly.

Mariner.

Depends on to which mission you are referring. There has been more than one mission during this war on terrorism. There have been some you have heard of and some that you have not.

 

[dilloduck]

words and their meaning reminds me of exactly one thing: Pres. Clinton trying to finesse Monica Lewinsky's allegations.

Why not just admit it? Your president made a very significant error in judgment. He was hoodwinked by Iraqi expatriates who had their own reasons for wanting an invasion of Iraq. This was made worse by his having already wanted to invade Iraq, based on the neoconservative arguments of Paul Wolfowitz and others. He then proceeded to cherry-pick the evidence. The New York Times had an incredible detailed piece a few weeks ago showing how the Energy Dept. knew that the aluminum rods which were the supposed "hard evidence" referred to by Rumsfelt, Powell and others were not appropriate for nuclear centrifuges, but the CIA didn't. The CIA knew that the Niger yellow cake story was false, but the Energy Dept. didn't. The administration purposefully took Energy's view on the rods and the CIA's view on the yellow cake, quashing dissent and refusing to share the evidence with the American people, a piece of secrecy necessary only because they knew their rationale would be shot down if people debated it openly, and then they would lose their excuse for invading.

According to today's headlines the mission is really accomplished over there, ain't it? Catastrophic misjudgement of the aftermath of invasion puts it mildly.

Mariner.

Still beating that same old dead horse? Amazing