VIDEO: Ray McGovern Rummy smackdown

[gerryhatrick]

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002783.htm

Truth to power is a beautiful thing.

Poor Rummy thought he had a friendly croud. He did....mostly.

[PocketRocket]

I thought it was rather telling when Rummy would make some lame wisecrack in response to being called on one of his *ahem* misrepresentations, and his highly-partisan crowd would applaud him.

And yet when McGovern would quote one of Rummy's statements from an earlier time, you could hear some of that same crowd heckling him, even though he was speaking in a very calm, lucid manner.

Also somewhat disturbing is what you really DIDN'T see on-camera, when Rummy would be saying "Let him stay", obviously in response to security trying to usher McGovern out of the room.

The guy was at a microphone, asking a question, and doing so in a civil manner.

He was hardly causing a disturbance or a scene (other than calling on Rummy to explain himself).

There seems to be a concious effort to stifle dissenting voices at these events.

[gerryhatrick]

Also somewhat disturbing is what you really DIDN'T see on-camera, when Rummy would be saying "Let him stay", obviously in response to security trying to usher McGovern out of the room.

Yes, I saw a version that showed the video for that. A security goon had him by the arm and was leaning into him. McGovern says "this is America." in the tone of recognizing a sad reality rather than a question.

The guy is truely heroic

[PocketRocket]

The guy is truely heroic

Well, I don't know if I'd go THAT far....

[gerryhatrick]

http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00002783.htm

Truth to power is a beautiful thing.

Poor Rummy thought he had a friendly croud. He did....mostly.

One attentive poster has noted with dismay that this topic is similar to another topic.

It should be noted, however, that this is a different video source and this version has more content.

Given the sheer amazing depth of this vivisection of Rumsfeld and the reasoning for the Iraq war, I'd say more threads yet would not be unreasonable. We are witnessing the dismantling of the lies, and Mr. Rumsfeld was one of the most intimidating of the liars, thus his downfall is quite symbolic.

When great moments and tipping points occur they should be broadcasted.

[BHS]

For those interested in what Rumsfeld actually said and why he said it, here's a blog post that recounts the whole story.

[newbie]

There is nothing clearer than what Rumsfelt originally said, "We know where they are." When he said to McGovern that he never said that, that is a bold face lie. Bush apologists can try and manipulate and contort

Rummy's words all they want, but the bottom line is Rumsfelt's own words betrayed him.

[BHS]

There is nothing clearer than what Rumsfelt originally said, "We know where they are." When he said to McGovern that he never said that, that is a bold face lie. Bush apologists can try and manipulate and contort

Rummy's words all they want, but the bottom line is Rumsfelt's own words betrayed him.

Did you read the blog post, or are you just going to stick with the Pelosi-style talking points and ignore an inconvenient explanation that doesn't jibe with your bias?

[gerryhatrick]

Did you read the blog post, or are you just going to stick with the Pelosi-style talking points and ignore an inconvenient explanation that doesn't jibe with your bias?

Oh, so it's SABRIS fault! That is truely pathetic.

One group decided on this war and one group pumped up false and misleading fears and used faulty intelligence.

The Bush Cabinet.

From the Washington Post story the blog cherry-picks:

The White House, which was seeking a congressional resolution that would permit the use of force against Iraq, hoped Sabri would defect, the two former officials said.

"They wanted a big public defection, which would have been good for the policy," one official said. But Sabri comes from a prominent Iraqi family and defection was not an option, one of the former officials said.

The White House was far more interested in trying to get Sabri to defect than in the information he was providing on Iraq's weapons programs, in part because the intelligence community did not trust him, another former intelligence official said.

So, the intelligence community DID NOT TRUST Sabri. But, it's OK for Rumsfeld to take the mans word (dispersed) and repeat his claims in a form indicating absolute certainty.

Rumsfeld seems to have lied when he said "we know where they are".

Do you agree?

[PocketRocket]

Rumsfeld seems to have lied when he said "we know where they are".

Do you agree?

He can claim that he was given "bad intelligence" to try cover his tracks.

But if he didn't lie then, he obviously lied when he denied saying "we know where they are".

Either way, he's a liar, and worse yet, he's been seen to have lied to the Amercian public.

Unfortunately there are those on both sides of the political spectrum that will stick by their partisan views and not be shaken by facts.

[BHS]

Oh, so it's SABRIS fault! That is truely pathetic.

Since when did "fault" enter into this?

One group decided on this war and one group pumped up false and misleading fears and used faulty intelligence.

The Bush Cabinet.

And then 53% of American voters decided that the Administration had chosen the correct course of action, even though WMD hadn't been found where Rumsfeld said they would be. But that's not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is "RUMSFELD IS A LIAR BECAUSE HE BELIEVED AND REPEATED INACCURATE INTELLIGENCE" and "SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER IS A BEAUTIFUL THING. LET'S GET NAKED IN PUBLIC AND AND CARRY RIDICULOUS PLACARDS AND PLAY BONGOS AND STUFF."

So, the intelligence community DID NOT TRUST Sabri. But, it's OK for Rumsfeld to take the mans word (dispersed) and repeat his claims in a form indicating absolute certainty.

Rumsfeld seems to have lied when he said "we know where they are".

Do you agree?

No. If Person A believes what Person B is saying, it is not a lie for Person A to repeat what they've heard even if it turns out not to be true. Lying requires intent to mislead. I gather that you believe Rumsfeld harboured such an intent. Good for you. Doesn't make it true though. Just truthy. (Colbert's comedy cuts both ways.)

[Shakeyhands]

Where is Monty et al to defend one of their idols? There is an amazing lack of the usual right wing bandits posting in this thread.... hmmmm

[gerryhatrick]

No. If Person A believes what Person B is saying, it is not a lie for Person A to repeat what they've heard even if it turns out not to be true.

Actually it is, if person A has person D,E, & F working for them and advising them that person B is not credible.

McGovern demonstrated a clear lie.

And the blog link you give trying to poke a hole in McGoverns case against Rumsfeld is very poor.

The WaPo story linked to in that blog entry contains information that demonstrates the premise of the blog entry false:

"The White House was far more interested in trying to get Sabri to defect than in the information he was providing on Iraq's weapons programs, in part because the intelligence community did not trust him, another former intelligence official said."

Interesting that context was left out!

Whoever wrote that blog entry is a rank amature, linking to the very story that debunks the nonsensical partisan nitwittery the blog tries to foist.

[BHS]

Actually it is, if person A has person D,E, & F working for them and advising them that person B is not credible.

McGovern demonstrated a clear lie.

Bull. Clearly Sabri wasn't the only source of intel. Clearly Rumseld believed there were weapons to be found in the Sunni triangle. To reiterate, it's not a lie to honestly express your belief. Any rank amateur should be able to reason that out. It's interesting to me that you can't.

[newbie]

Gotta say that Rummy is a great liar. He even said a "missle" went into the pentagon, not a plane.

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Parade Magazine, October 12, 2001

http://www.911investigations.net/document8...c387f670efa86dd

[newbie]

There is nothing clearer than what Rumsfelt originally said, "We know where they are." When he said to McGovern that he never said that, that is a bold face lie. Bush apologists can try and manipulate and contort

Rummy's words all they want, but the bottom line is Rumsfelt's own words betrayed him.

Did you read the blog post, or are you just going to stick with the Pelosi-style talking points and ignore an inconvenient explanation that doesn't jibe with your bias?

No bias. Just Rummy's words against each other.

[gerryhatrick]

Bull. Clearly Sabri wasn't the only source of intel. Clearly Rumseld believed there were weapons to be found in the Sunni triangle. To reiterate, it's not a lie to honestly express your belief. Any rank amateur should be able to reason that out. It's interesting to me that you can't.

What's interesting is your diehard support for this demonstrated liar. Your red herring that he might have been "honestly expressing" his belief is a poor attempt.

It is not OK to say that you KNOW something when you clearly do not. Rumsfeld knew that the evidence was suspect, so there was no honest way he could say they knew where the WMD's are.

Using your excuse anyone can tell any lie they feel like as long as they qualify it later with a "that's what I believed at the time" statement. That about it?

[BHS]

What's interesting is your diehard support for this demonstrated liar. Your red herring that he might have been "honestly expressing" his belief is a poor attempt.

Do you even know what a red herring is? Because this isn't an example of one. Go ahead and look it up. And, I didn't make any statements qualified with "might have been". Rumsfeld believed what he believed.

It is not OK to say that you KNOW something when you clearly do not. Rumsfeld knew that the evidence was suspect, so there was no honest way he could say they knew where the WMD's are.

By the same logic, all of the people in the world who KNOW that global warming is caused by human activity and share this information are liars. (In case you are one of these people: average yearly global atmospheric temperature fluctuations have been happening without human intervention for billions of years. This hasn't prevented multitudes of gullible people from being mislead to believe that the entire "fault" for this "calamity" lies solely with human beings.) (Oh, and this paragraph is much closer to being a red herring than anything else I've written in this thread. If I hadn't prefaced my first sentence with "By the same logic" it absolutely would be a red herring.)

Rumsfeld was given contradictory intel. He chose the intel he thought best, he believed it, and he shared his belief. That doesn't make him a liar.

Using your excuse anyone can tell any lie they feel like as long as they qualify it later with a "that's what I believed at the time" statement. That about it?

No, that's not about it. I've patiently explained to you that telling a lie is in part a matter of intent. If, per your example, you say something with the intent to deceive then you are a liar, regardless of any later declarations.

You clearly believe that Rumsfeld intended to deceive, and I do not. The given facts of this situation can be read either way.

What I'm getting from you "RUMSFELD IS A LIAR" people is cheap desperation. You're really just quibbling about a missing qualifier in a single sentence. If Rumsfeld had said 'We believe we know where the weapons are" you wouldn't have an argument at all. Pretty weak, people.

[newbie]

Rumsfeld was given contradictory intel. He chose the intel he thought best, he believed it, and he shared his belief. That doesn't make him a liar.

And then there's that nasty Downing Street Memo.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

[BHS]

Rumsfeld was given contradictory intel. He chose the intel he thought best, he believed it, and he shared his belief. That doesn't make him a liar.

And then there's that nasty Downing Street Memo.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

The Downing Street Memo makes it clear that those who were privy to it believed Saddam had WMD. They discussed what the fall out would be if he used such weapons on Day 1 of the war. Let's recap:

- Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons.

- Saddam had a history of attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

- Weapons inspectors in the 90's found WMD in Iraq. In 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq for the last time before the run-up to the war, there were still stockpiles of these WMD whose destruction had not been accounted for.

- Also in 1998 Clinton signed a bill declaring the American government's intention to remove Saddam from office.

- The ceasefire conditions from 1991 and subsequent UNSC resolutions left open the possibilityof military intervention should Saddam fail to meet the conditions of the ceasefire

- Every intelligence agency worth a grain of salt on the planet believed that Saddam had WMD. The Downing Street Memo authors believed it. Sabri believed it. Saddam's son-in-law believed it. But in the no-win situations you guys are forever trying to cook up the US administration is either right about every last detail, right down to their syntax in ad libbed public speech, or else they are moral degenerates.

[GostHacked]

Gotta say that Rummy is a great liar. He even said a "missle" went into the pentagon, not a plane.

"It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it's physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filled with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them."

Parade Magazine, October 12, 2001

http://www.911investigations.net/document8...c387f670efa86dd

NICE JOB PARADE!!! For just ignoring the missle comment and then RIGHT on to Osama. Bait and switch. So either the artilce is fake or Parade just went along with the show. Now a missile can mean a projectile, so in essence he could be taking about the plane as a missile. But then again, the WMDs were to the East, West, South and North somewhat.

Rumsfeld was given contradictory intel. He chose the intel he thought best, he believed it, and he shared his belief. That doesn't make him a liar.

Correct, but it does make him guilible. It would have been up to anylists to give him the most correct and up to date information. That proved wrong. He may not have lied, but SOMEONE in the Pentagon lied to him. Even after the fact, the shoddy inteligence (yellow cake from Nigeria) was clear to me at that time. And I am NOT in the intel biz.

I read Imad Khadurri's book 'Iraq's Nuclear Mirage' (Memoirs and Delusions) After the bombing of the Osarik reactor, they had little chance of getting a nuclear bomb. The book describes that they were using an inefficient technology to enrich uranium. Proved to be too costly and too slow. They adopted the west's methods for enriching uranium. By the time they were to build a new reactor which was uderway, the Gulf War happened. After that they never had the means to get a nuclear program off the ground. I cannot say for sure on this on chem or bio weapons.

He seems to know what he is talking about

MSc in Physics - University of Michigan (US)

PhD in Nuclear Reactor Design - Uni of Birmingham (US)

Also in the book he had some extra education in England.

Neat thing he describes in his book on how the US led invasion disabled power stations by dropping nets with balls of graphite wound into the net. Bzzt. Neat. Khadduri is now living in Toronto Ontario.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

- Saddam had a history of using chemical weapons.

- Saddam had a history of attempting to develop nuclear weapons.

Correct.

Weapons inspectors in the 90's found WMD in Iraq. In 1998, when the inspectors left Iraq for the last time before the run-up to the war, there were still stockpiles of these WMD whose destruction had not been accounted for

Partially correct. The claim is that until 1991, they had WMDs.

there were still stockpiles of these WMD whose destruction had not been accounted for

This part may well be false. They were unaccounted for, as was the paperwork documenting their alleged destruction.

The ceasefire conditions from 1991 and subsequent UNSC resolutions left open the possibilityof military intervention should Saddam fail to meet the conditions of the ceasefire

Very true, however...

[gerryhatrick]

By the same logic, all of the people in the world who KNOW that global warming is caused by human activity and share this information are liars. (In case you are one of these people: average yearly global atmospheric temperature fluctuations have been happening without human intervention for billions of years. This hasn't prevented multitudes of gullible people from being mislead to believe that the entire "fault" for this "calamity" lies solely with human beings.)

Good grief.

Another global warming denial nut. Thanks for pigeon holing yourself, now we can get back to our regular programming.

[newbie]

BHS, you obviously missed this part of the Downing Street Memo:

"But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

[BHS]

By the same logic, all of the people in the world who KNOW that global warming is caused by human activity and share this information are liars. (In case you are one of these people: average yearly global atmospheric temperature fluctuations have been happening without human intervention for billions of years. This hasn't prevented multitudes of gullible people from being mislead to believe that the entire "fault" for this "calamity" lies solely with human beings.)

Good grief.

Another global warming denial nut. Thanks for pigeon holing yourself, now we can get back to our regular programming.

I'm not denying that the global average temperature is trending up. It would be as disengenuous of me to argue the temperature hasn't risen since 1970 as it would be for you to deny the global average fell between 1940 and 1970. What I'm denying is that human activity is the cause.

I would also argue against the notion that changing human activity will have a significant impact on future temperature fluctuations. The enviro-alarmists who currently wail and moan about global warming are lead by individuals who in the 1970's were certain that an ice age was just around the corner. I'd say their predictions have not gotten better with age - at least the ice age theory has an established geological pattern to back it up. If I had to put my money on either runaway human-induced global warming or a geologically induced ice age I'd bet the farm on the latter. It's kind of ironic that the people who claim to put nature first have such little faith in it.