• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Rumsfield gets caught

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Disagreeable

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
2,464
Reaction score
0
Donald Rumsfeld was questioned today about his lies leading up to the war. Here's the transcript from that exchange:

"QUESTION: So I would like to ask you to be up front with the American people, why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? why?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. the president spent weeks and weeks with the central intelligence people and he went to the american people and made a presentation. i'm not in the intelligence business. they gave the world their honest opinion. it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

RUMSFELD: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and -

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

RUMSFELD: My words -- my words were that -- no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.

QUESTION: This is America.

RUMSFELD: You're getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I'd just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I'm giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we're talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's also...

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren't idiots. They know the story.

(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)

RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.

It's easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?

(LAUGHTER)

They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.

(APPLAUSE)

Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people previously. He'd used them on his neighbor (AUDIO GAP) the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons.

We believed he had those weapons.

QUESTION: That's what we call a non sequitur. It doesn't matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience
."

I was glad to see the network I was watching actually played the video of Rumsfeld when he said he knew where the WMDs were. He was flat out caught lying. The questioner was a former CIA officer. You'll notice that Rumsfeld tried to shift the audience's attention to what the soldiers believed, as if that mattered. They did as they were told. When told to get into their protective gear, they got it on.
 
Rummy ever so gently threw Powell under the bus!!!! I

don't like this old man BUT I will give credit where credit is due.....he's got a silver tongue!!
 
Just curious, I guess we all read stories differently. This mornings (AP) report simply stated that there were 4 anti-war protesters & hecklers at Rumsfeld's speech. (sure nothing unusual about that!) One who asked the question & accused Rumsfeld of lying was a former cia analyst turned protester. Is this suppose to add some special weight to his accusations? (there are thousands of retired or former government workers out there)

The wait-wait remarks from Rumsfeld was due to the fact that security constantly removes hecklers during speeches. Rumsfeld wanted to answer the mans question and did so. So, where does the "Rumsfeld gets caught" come from? Wouldn't the headline "Rumsfeld gets heckled again" have been just as fitting?

One more question. As for people who condemn this man for believing his intelligence sources, who are your sources and what is their creditability? As I said, I'm just curious & I know people wouldn't use biased newspaper stories as proof of wrong doing. Naw, I think most would be sharper than that!
So who are your sources? Or are they to confidential to reveal? :lol:

Have a nice weekend.
 
fedup2 said:
Just curious, I guess we all read stories differently. This mornings (AP) report simply stated that there were 4 anti-war protesters & hecklers at Rumsfeld's speech. (sure nothing unusual about that!) One who asked the question & accused Rumsfeld of lying was a former cia analyst turned protester. Is this suppose to add some special weight to his accusations? (there are thousands of retired or former government workers out there)

You wouldn't give the questions of a CIA analyst any more weight than, say, BBJ's questions? I would.

The wait-wait remarks from Rumsfeld was due to the fact that security constantly removes hecklers during speeches. Rumsfeld wanted to answer the mans question and did so. So, where does the "Rumsfeld gets caught" come from? Wouldn't the headline "Rumsfeld gets heckled again" have been just as fitting?

But Rumsfeld didn't answer the question. He said "I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and..." That's simply a lie. I've seen the clips from an ABC interview twice now where he claims to know where the WMDs are. Not "suspected sites", but where the WMDs were. That's where the "Rumsfeld gets caught" comes from.

One more question. As for people who condemn this man for believing his intelligence sources, who are your sources and what is their creditability? As I said, I'm just curious & I know people wouldn't use biased newspaper stories as proof of wrong doing. Naw, I think most would be sharper than that!
So who are your sources? Or are they to confidential to reveal? :lol:

He, right along with George W. Bush, chose which intelligence to believe and which to discard based on the fact they wanted to go to war with Saddam. They used intelligence from a German source, even though German intelligence had told them he was unreliable. They used the Niger-yellowcake claim even though the CIA told them it probably wasn't true. They lost interest in the Iraqi Foreign Minister, who the CIA turned, once they found out he claimed there were no WMDs. There's a long, long list of intelligence they ignored, hid, or classified, that contridicted the intelligence they used to make their case for war. The White House even admitted they should not have used the Niger-Yellowcake line in the State of the Union Speech. Do they carry any weight with you? Or how about Bush, himself, saying there's no proof Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. Is that reliable enough for you? :roll:

Have a nice weekend.

Thank you.
 
Why is the media so biased? Have heard from several people that were over there and chemical wepons have been used against US troops, why is this not reported?

Seems like they have problems reporting the truth, they just report their side of the story or the side they support. In my opinion some of these protesters need to get a life and get out and do something worthwhile.
 
the media only reports what will work to get the Clinton whore in the white house in the next election.

I wish all the troops would decide to stop protecting the reporters who are obviously liberal and let the asses fend for themselves.


the ABC anchor who was hurt over there gets more airtime than any single soldier that has been hurt, so that in itself shows where the press feels the story is.
 
Agreed Jigs!! Well said.

And Dis would probably be a much happier person if she could
"GET A LIFE" as Tom mentioned. She can't have time for much else
than bashing Bush all day. I'm betting this most likely isn't the only place she does this.

'Course since she is getting paid to do it, I guess time doesn't matter so
much.
 
Faster horses said:
Agreed Jigs!! Well said.

And Dis would probably be a much happier person if she could
"GET A LIFE" as Tom mentioned. She can't have time for much else
than bashing Bush all day. I'm betting this most likely isn't the only place she does this.

'Course since she is getting paid to do it, I guess time doesn't matter so
much.
I have to agree with you, FH. I only wish that Jigs would open up and tell us how he really feels. :D

I also agree that dis seems to be a bitter, bitter person. At times. Maybe even MOST times? :lol: Sometimes I try to think of something good about her. Everyone has to have at least one redeeming quality, right?

Here's one about dis: She doesn't mind going head to head with the animal rights wackos and PETA assholes. And when she does, she is just as vigorous in her defense of the cattle industry as she is in her political commentary. It's sure nice having her on our side then.

I guess that's one of the reasons that I wish she would come out of the closet and tell everyone else who she is or what she does. Because whether you guys want to believe it or not, she doesn't get paid to post here. And whether you want to believe it or not, she really has a lot to add to other ranching discussions.

But I agree that she does come across as a grouchy old....whatever. :wink:
 
jigs said:
the media only reports what will work to get the Clinton whore in the white house in the next election.

Shame on you for using such language on this discussion board. There are probably children reading this board.

I wish all the troops would decide to stop protecting the reporters who are obviously liberal and let the asses fend for themselves.

There has been a record number of reporters killed or wounded in this war as compared to any other war. They have families just like the soldiers. They're doing their jobs, just like the soldiers. That you wish any American harm shows your true colors.

the ABC anchor who was hurt over there gets more airtime than any single soldier that has been hurt, so that in itself shows where the press feels the story is.

People felt they knew the ABC anchor. He came into their homes every night. The soldiers are mostly mourned by their famlies and friends. Besides, there was only one of him; 2400+ dead military and thousands of wounded and mained, then we get to the tens of thousands dead Iraqis, men, women, children, and babies. Funny, I don't see the media mentioning the Iraqis at all.
 
Disagreeable said:
jigs said:
the media only reports what will work to get the Clinton whore in the white house in the next election.

Shame on you for using such language on this discussion board. There are probably children reading this board.

Double standard; hypocrisy; link below. My emphasis. :D

[u said:
Disagreeable[/u]"]One pundit has suggested Bush could improve his poll numbers by getting a blow job from a WH intern. :D

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=53976#53976
 
Disagreeable said:
jigs said:
the media only reports what will work to get the Clinton whore in the white house in the next election.

Shame on you for using such language on this discussion board. There are probably children reading this board.

I wish all the troops would decide to stop protecting the reporters who are obviously liberal and let the asses fend for themselves.

There has been a record number of reporters killed or wounded in this war as compared to any other war. They have families just like the soldiers. They're doing their jobs, just like the soldiers. That you wish any American harm shows your true colors.

the ABC anchor who was hurt over there gets more airtime than any single soldier that has been hurt, so that in itself shows where the press feels the story is.

People felt they knew the ABC anchor. He came into their homes every night. The soldiers are mostly mourned by their famlies and friends. Besides, there was only one of him; 2400+ dead military and thousands of wounded and mained, then we get to the tens of thousands dead Iraqis, men, women, children, and babies. Funny, I don't see the media mentioning the Iraqis at all.

number one, Hillary is a whore, and I ain't backing off of that statement for no reason!

the reporters were not ordered over there, they are there on ego trips, or go for the cash bonus. there are other things to report on in safer areas, they CHOOSE to go, they do not deserve the extra protection.

the ABC anchor got what he asked for...I am sorry he was hurt, wish him a speedy recovery, but don't give a rats ass if I ever see another report on his progress. spend some time interviewing recovering soldiers, not ego maniac a-hole reporters.

I suppose I too felt like I knew him....liberal, Bush bashing, uptight jerk...... part of me enjoys him getting wounded. At least we KNOW he deserves a medal, perhaps John Kerry could give him the ones he stole!
 

Latest posts

Top