Rumsfeld proven a liar. Twice.

[CFLarsen]

Protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man, a former CIA analyst, accused him of lying about Iraq prewar intelligence in an unusually vociferous display of anti-war sentiment.
Full story + videos (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/04/rumsfeld.ap/index.html)

Ray McGovern: Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?

Donald 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 I know he believed was accurate. And he presented that to the United Nations. The President spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency 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.

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were...

Ray McGovern: You said you knew where they were, near Tikrit, near Bagdad, and North, South, East and West of there. Those were your words.

Donald Rumsfeld: My words...my words were that....no, no, no, wait a minute, wait a minute, let him stay one second. (Waves to the security people) Just a second.

(Someone) This is America, huh?

Donald Rumsfeld: You're getting plenty of play, Sir.

Ray McGovern: I'd just like an honest answer.

Donald Rumsfeld: I'm giving it to you.

Ray McGovern: We're talking about lies, and your allegation that there was bullet-proof evidence of ties between Al-Queda and Iraq. Was that a lie, or were you misled?

Donald Rumsfeld: Zarqawi was in Bagdad during the pre-war period. That is a fact.

Ray McGovern: Zarqawi? He was in the North of Iraq, in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule.

Donald Rumsfeld: He was also in Bagdad.

Ray McGovern: Yeah, when he needed to go to the hospital. Come on, these people aren't idiots, they know the story.

Donald Rumsfeld: You are...Let me...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? They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on his own people perviously, he'd used them on his neighbors, the Iranians, and they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

Ray McGovern: That's what we call a non sequitur, it doesn't matter what the troops believed, it matters what you believed.

Donald Rumsfeld: We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit, and Bagdad, and East, West, South and North, somewhat.
March 30, 2003: ABC's "This Week".

Oops.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

[Grammatron]

Can you link to the September 27th issue of times? Thanks.

[headscratcher4]

He didn't lie...not in the way you and I might understand that word...he didn't fully understand the question.

[CFLarsen]

Can you link to the September 27th issue of times? Thanks.
I got that from the video clip.

[CFLarsen]

He didn't lie...not in the way you and I might understand that word...he didn't fully understand the question.
Of course....

[Pauliesonne]

I can't believe someone made a thread about something that is as normal as sex.

Really, come on!!!!

Is anybody suprised that a politician would lie?

[Grammatron]

I got that from the video clip.

I can't seem to locate any such quote and since this is your thread/claim I wonder if you want to look into this as well.

[punchdrunk]

I can't seem to locate any such quote and since this is your thread/claim I wonder if you want to look into this as well.

The best I can do:

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html

[Grammatron]

The best I can do:

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html
Not quite the "Bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks" as alleged in the OP quotes.

In fact:

Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States. Some intelligence and law enforcement officials said today,

[Nyarlathotep]

I can't believe someone made a thread about something that is as normal as sex.

Really, come on!!!!

Is anybody suprised that a politician would lie?

Just because politicians lie all the time, doesn't mean people should just accept it. The fact the people accept it as normal encourages them to do it.

[Ziggurat]

According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

I'm going with Grammatron on this one. I've never seen or heard a quote from anyone in the administration claiming that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Absent such a quote (preferably a whole transcript), I'm inclined to think that there was no such lie, and that either you've made a mistake in your recall of what the NYT said, or the NYT mislead you (my guess is the latter). Why? Because I've seen how badly the press screws up characterizations of what people say.

[punchdrunk]

More info:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t10242002_t1024sd.html


Rumsfeld: There's one other thing I forgot to do, and that is to go to New York Times editorial comment, which said something about me using the word "bulletproof." And it's true, I did. What happened was, as I recall, I think I was here on probably the 26th of September, I think I was told, and in a press briefing I was asked about the linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. And I took a piece of paper -- this one, as fate would have it -- which I had gotten from the Central Intelligence Agency -- and asked them -- which I'd asked them for -- and I believe I said that, that a number of us had said, "Give us the definitive word." And so I read off of it and said it was from the intelligence agency, I believe.

Then I was down the next day, I think, in Atlanta, and I was asked about this subject, and I said that the agency had come back to me with five or six sentences that were bulletproof. And it was the -- when I said the -- something was bulletproof, I was referring to the five or six sentences that I had read here off of a piece of paper which I'd received from the agency.

What we've done in the department has been to be very careful about, oh, having John McLaughlin, for example, or George Tenet do the briefing in Warsaw or do the briefings when people come into the building so that everyone is aware what the agreed community position is on intelligence. And I think it was The New York Times had an editorial that was querying about the word "bulletproof," and that's the -- that is what it had reference to.

[CFLarsen]

I can't seem to locate any such quote and since this is your thread/claim I wonder if you want to look into this as well.
There are two video clips: One at the CNN.com Politics section (right now, it's the top link), and one in the article I linked to.

[Ziggurat]

More info:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t10242002_t1024sd.html

In other words, the woman questioning Rumsfeld was the one who was wrong (I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that she just swallowed propaganda and didn't really know the truth). The "bulletproof" refered to links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. So Rumsfeld was right in his response to that woman, and she and CFLarsen are wrong.

BTW, if I were a Rumsfeld critic, I'd think twice about backing McGovern as your champion. He's a wingnut.

[punchdrunk]

I'm going with Grammatron on this one. I've never seen or heard a quote from anyone in the administration claiming that Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Absent such a quote (preferably a whole transcript), I'm inclined to think that there was no such lie, and that either you've made a mistake in your recall of what the NYT said, or the NYT mislead you (my guess is the latter). Why? Because I've seen how badly the press screws up characterizations of what people say.

Yet, not only does he no longer deny it, he tries to defend it.

edit: oops, misread this one. Forget it.

[punchdrunk]

BTW, if I were a Rumsfeld critic, I'd think twice about backing McGovern as your champion. He's a wingnut.

Evidence of said wingnuttery would be helpful. Thanks.

[CFLarsen]

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had ''bulletproof'' evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
New York Times (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C15FE3C5C0C7B8EDDA00894DA4044 82)

There ya go.

Agree that Rumsfeld is a liar?

[Grammatron]

There ya go.

Agree that Rumsfeld is a liar?
Claim: (Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?


You have not shown evidence that Rumsfeld claimed to have link between Saddam and 9/11 only Saddam and Al Queda. That is not at all the same.

[Ziggurat]

Yet, not only does he no longer deny it, he tries to defend it.

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Rumsfeld is denying that he claimed any connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. And as far as I can tell that's true, he never did, the sources linked to here support that conclusion, the woman was wrong, and so is CFLarsen. It's a DIFFERENT question as to whether or not Iraq had any other ties to Al Qaeda, what exactly those connections were, what exactly Rumsfeld said about those connections, and what he knew about them. But that's not what that woman in CFLarsen's quote was talking about - she rather specifically said the 9/11 attacks, and Rumsfeld's response to her looks to me like he's taking the same position on that topic that the administration has taken all along.

[punchdrunk]

To be clear, from what I can tell:

Rumsfeld "bulletproof" comment was about links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not 9/11 and Iraq.

McGovern did not claim that Rumsfeld made this comment about 9/11-Iraq.

Unnamed lady at the bottom of the OP did, which Rumsfeld did deny, and I have not seen that denial retracted.

Rumsfeld does defend the Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

Yes?

[punchdrunk]

I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to. Rumsfeld is denying that he claimed any connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. And as far as I can tell that's true, he never did, the sources linked to here support that conclusion, the woman was wrong, and so is CFLarsen. It's a DIFFERENT question as to whether or not Iraq had any other ties to Al Qaeda, what exactly those connections were, what exactly Rumsfeld said about those connections, and what he knew about them. But that's not what that woman in CFLarsen's quote was talking about - she rather specifically said the 9/11 attacks, and Rumsfeld's response to her looks to me like he's taking the same position on that topic that the administration has taken all along.

Yes, I got confused. Post #20 was an attempt to make things clear. Hopefully we can progress from there.

[Grammatron]

To be clear, from what I can tell:

Rumsfeld "bulletproof" comment was about links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not 9/11 and Iraq.

McGovern did not claim that Rumsfeld made this comment about 9/11-Iraq.

Unnamed lady at the bottom of the OP did, which Rumsfeld did deny, and I have not seen that denial retracted.

Rumsfeld does defend the Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

Yes?

This is accurate, yes.

[Evolver]

Donald Rumsfeld: You are...Let me...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? They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons.

Because YOU, The Secretary of Defense, told them the Iraqis had chemical weapons!

Yeesh!

[punchdrunk]

From the NYTimes article:

Mr. Rumsfeld explained today that he had met with his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and other top aides about a week ago, to figure out a way to declassify some of the information about Iraq-Al Qaeda links. He said intelligence analysts came back with "five or six sentences" that were "bulletproof" and could be cited in briefings with allies, lawmakers and the public.

"But they‘re not photographs," Mr. Rumsfeld said today. "They‘re not beyond a reasonable doubt. They, in some cases, are assessments from limited number of sources."

I would like to know what these "bulletproof" statements are. I would also like to know how bulletproof = "not beyond a reasonable doubt".

[punchdrunk]

Because YOU, The Secretary of Defense, sold them the chemical weapons!

Yeesh!

Fixed that for ya..

[CFLarsen]

Rumsfeld "bulletproof" comment was about links between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not 9/11 and Iraq.

So, Rummy is saying that there is no link between Al Qaeda and 9/11?

McGovern did not claim that Rumsfeld made this comment about 9/11-Iraq.

Nobody said so. McGovern's issue is with the WMD.

Unnamed lady at the bottom of the OP did, which Rumsfeld did deny, and I have not seen that denial retracted.

Rumsfeld does defend the Al Qaeda-Iraq link.

No, he doesn't. Well, not anymore. The issue is, he denies he ever had "bulletproof" evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

[Ziggurat]

Evidence of said wingnuttery would be helpful. Thanks.

It came up recently in another thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1619855#post1619855
Here's a shortened version of what I said in that thread.
McGovern gave an interview in Feb. 2004, where he talks about Tenet, Bush, 9/11, and the Iraq war:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/mcgovern.html
He made some wrong predictions about Tenet, based in part on what he thought was Tenet's ability to blackmail Bush with a smoking gun in the form of the infamous August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. That PDB was released a few months later, and while it may not look that great for Bush, it sure as hell isn't the smoking gun that McGovern thought it would be. According to Tricky, McGovern said in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper that there are memos which prove Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. I doubt McGovern has even seen whatever memos he's refering to, and is probably just as mistaken about whatever their content is. So he's not exactly a reliable source about what's really going on.

But from a strategic standpoint, the problem with backing McGovern goes even deeper. McGovern also thinks that the war in Iraq was waged for the benefit of Israel, by people in the administration who are more loyal to Israel than to the US. He's also rabidly partisan, referring to neocons as fascists, and comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire under Hitler. He's basically fallen into the cliche of what an ultra-leftist anti-war protester should be (compare Bush to Hitler, blame it on the Jews, rant about conspiracy theories, etc) - even if any of his criticisms turn out to be valid, he's exactly the sort of person you DON'T want making your case for you, because a lot of people are going to discount him because he's a wingnut. And you don't even need him to make any case against Bush OR Rumsfeld, because frankly, there is NO new information he's actually bringing to the table. All he represents is argument from authority (the press loves to trot out how he was in the CIA for 27 years, etc), but that won't hold up long under scrutiny. Don't back the loon just because he's the enemy of your enemy. That didn't work out for the anti-war crowd with Cindy Sheehan, and it won't work with McGovern.

[CFLarsen]

You have not shown evidence that Rumsfeld claimed to have link between Saddam and 9/11 only Saddam and Al Queda. That is not at all the same.

Excuse me? Just who the hell is he fighting a war against terror against?

[Grammatron]

Excuse me? Just who the hell is he fighting a war against terror against?

You are not excused, your claim is not in evidence and you have yet to retract it.

[Ziggurat]

So, Rummy is saying that there is no link between Al Qaeda and 9/11?

How desperate are you to avoid admitting you were wrong? That's like saying I have links to Kevin Bacon because I can play that "Six Degrees" game. Al Qaeda was engaged in a lot of activity, only ONE of which was the 9/11 attacks. If someone says that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks, it doens't mean in a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" sort of way - it means that they actually helped out with that specific operation. THAT is what EVERYONE understands that claim to mean, unless they're being dishonest, as you now appear to be. The administration has never claimed any such link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

[CFLarsen]

You are not excused, your claim is not in evidence and you have yet to retract it.
I asked you a question.

[Evolver]

It came up recently in another thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1619855#post1619855
Here's a shortened version of what I said in that thread.
McGovern gave an interview in Feb. 2004, where he talks about Tenet, Bush, 9/11, and the Iraq war:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/mcgovern.html
He made some wrong predictions about Tenet, based in part on what he thought was Tenet's ability to blackmail Bush with a smoking gun in the form of the infamous August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. That PDB was released a few months later, and while it may not look that great for Bush, it sure as hell isn't the smoking gun that McGovern thought it would be. According to Tricky, McGovern said in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper that there are memos which prove Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. I doubt McGovern has even seen whatever memos he's refering to, and is probably just as mistaken about whatever their content is. So he's not exactly a reliable source about what's really going on.

But from a strategic standpoint, the problem with backing McGovern goes even deeper. McGovern also thinks that the war in Iraq was waged for the benefit of Israel, by people in the administration who are more loyal to Israel than to the US. He's also rabidly partisan, referring to neocons as fascists, and comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire under Hitler. He's basically fallen into the cliche of what an ultra-leftist anti-war protester should be (compare Bush to Hitler, blame it on the Jews, rant about conspiracy theories, etc) - even if any of his criticisms turn out to be valid, he's exactly the sort of person you DON'T want making your case for you, because a lot of people are going to discount him because he's a wingnut. And you don't even need him to make any case against Bush OR Rumsfeld, because frankly, there is NO new information he's actually bringing to the table. All he represents is argument from authority (the press loves to trot out how he was in the CIA for 27 years, etc), but that won't hold up long under scrutiny. Don't back the loon just because he's the enemy of your enemy. That didn't work out for the anti-war crowd with Cindy Sheehan, and it won't work with McGovern.
None of this makes the questions he asked Rumsfeld any less valid.
The Bushies propaganda machine attempts to make all of their critics out to be wingnuts.

[CFLarsen]

How desperate are you to avoid admitting you were wrong? That's like saying I have links to Kevin Bacon because I can play that "Six Degrees" game. Al Qaeda was engaged in a lot of activity, only ONE of which was the 9/11 attacks. If someone says that Iraq was linked to the 9/11 attacks, it doens't mean in a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" sort of way - it means that they actually helped out with that specific operation. THAT is what EVERYONE understands that claim to mean, unless they're being dishonest, as you now appear to be.

The administration has never claimed any such link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.

I didn't ask about Iraq. I asked about Al Qaeda and 9/11.

[Grammatron]

I asked you a question.

You sure have, also you dodged the facts that prove your statement wrong.

[CFLarsen]

The Bush administration has labeled bin Laden's Al Qaeda network as the prime suspect in the September 11th attacks.
Source (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/al_qaeda.html)

Next, it will be argued that Osama bin Laden is not really Al Qaeda.... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

You sure have, also you dodged the facts that prove your statement wrong.
So far, I have been the only one presenting evidence after evidence.

You have simply said "Uh-huh, doesn't exist, it's not real, you are wrong".

[punchdrunk]

The issue is, he denies he ever had "bulletproof" evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

Could you provide evidence for this? Thanks.

edit: "he" is Rumsfeld.

[Ziggurat]

None of this makes the questions he asked Rumsfeld any less valid.
The Bushies propaganda machine attempts to make all of their critics out to be wingnuts.

Are you calling me part of the Bush propaganda machine? I did some searching on McGovern, came up with that transcript, and came to the conclusion that he's a whackjob rather on my own - no orders from Rove or anything. If I'm part of the Bush propaganda machine, I'm getting paid awfully poorly for my services. So from where I'm sitting, it's not about making all of Bush's critics into wingnuts (not all of them are), it's about McGovern actually BEING a whackjob.

As for the questions McGovern asked Rumsfeld, sure, his loony status alone doesn't disqualify the questions themselves. That wasn't quite my point, though: basically everything he asked has been asked before by plenty of other people, there's nothing new involved here. The only reason this is a story is because the press thinks McGovern's identity makes it a story, and I'm saying that's a dangerous path for Rumsfeld critics to follow. Go ahead and keep on asking whatever questions you like of Bush and the rest of the administration. But using McGovern as the tool to do it is going to backfire, because he IS a loon.

[Grammatron]

So far, I have been the only one presenting evidence after evidence.

You have simply said "Uh-huh, doesn't exist, it's not real, you are wrong".


Post #9 was in response to the claim in you post(#1).

Not evidence enough for you?

[Jocko]

So far, I have been the only one presenting evidence after evidence.

You have simply said "Uh-huh, doesn't exist, it's not real, you are wrong".


Claus, it may help if you stop using terms you don't understand in your thread titles, such as the term "proven." It rather undercuts your credibility when you don't bother to actually prove anything. ;)

[Ziggurat]

I didn't ask about Iraq. I asked about Al Qaeda and 9/11.

In other words, you want to change the topic from your original post, because you can no longer support your original assertion that Rumsfeld's denial (that he ever said there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks) was a lie. It wasn't a lie, you can't support YOUR claim that it was a lie, so now you want to change the topic to avoid admitting you were wrong. How... brave.

[CFLarsen]

Could you provide evidence for this? Thanks.

edit: "he" is Rumsfeld.
Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.

Post #9 was in response to the claim in you post(#1).

Not evidence enough for you?

And then, you saw the New York Times article. That article is wrong? A hoax, perhaps?

The PBS article is also wrong? The Bush Administration never thought that Al Qaeda was behind 9-11?

[punchdrunk]

It came up recently in another thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1619855#post1619855
Here's a shortened version of what I said in that thread.
McGovern gave an interview in Feb. 2004, where he talks about Tenet, Bush, 9/11, and the Iraq war:
http://www.nathancallahan.com/mcgovern.html
He made some wrong predictions about Tenet, based in part on what he thought was Tenet's ability to blackmail Bush with a smoking gun in the form of the infamous August 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing. That PDB was released a few months later, and while it may not look that great for Bush, it sure as hell isn't the smoking gun that McGovern thought it would be. According to Tricky, McGovern said in a CNN interview with Anderson Cooper that there are memos which prove Bush knew there were no WMD's in Iraq. I doubt McGovern has even seen whatever memos he's refering to, and is probably just as mistaken about whatever their content is. So he's not exactly a reliable source about what's really going on.

But from a strategic standpoint, the problem with backing McGovern goes even deeper. McGovern also thinks that the war in Iraq was waged for the benefit of Israel, by people in the administration who are more loyal to Israel than to the US. He's also rabidly partisan, referring to neocons as fascists, and comparing 9/11 to the Reichstag fire under Hitler. He's basically fallen into the cliche of what an ultra-leftist anti-war protester should be (compare Bush to Hitler, blame it on the Jews, rant about conspiracy theories, etc) - even if any of his criticisms turn out to be valid, he's exactly the sort of person you DON'T want making your case for you, because a lot of people are going to discount him because he's a wingnut. And you don't even need him to make any case against Bush OR Rumsfeld, because frankly, there is NO new information he's actually bringing to the table. All he represents is argument from authority (the press loves to trot out how he was in the CIA for 27 years, etc), but that won't hold up long under scrutiny. Don't back the loon just because he's the enemy of your enemy. That didn't work out for the anti-war crowd with Cindy Sheehan, and it won't work with McGovern.

Thank you for the information. I agree with you that the comparisons to Hitler, Fascists and the Reichstag fire are over the top. I would like to make one minor point - McGovern stated:


The real reasons for the Iraq War, he says, are to be found online at the neo-conservative website The Project for a New American Century. "And I would simply add, not as an afterthought, but as a core part of this whole calculus, that this war was fought as much for Israeli strategic objectives as it was for American strategic objectives. As a matter of fact, the people running our policy toward Iraq have great difficulty distinguishing between the two."

Saying that he "blamed in it on the Jews" tends to make one believe he is anti-Semitic or believes in some sort of great Jewish consipiracy, when I think that's not the case. It's not hard to imagine the US and Israeli objectives for the Middle East are similar, in fact I think they should be. But one can criticize those similarities, question their best interest, and not hate Jews in the process.

[CFLarsen]

In other words, you want to change the topic from your original post, because you can no longer support your original assertion that Rumsfeld's denial (that he ever said there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks) was a lie. It wasn't a lie, you can't support YOUR claim that it was a lie, so now you want to change the topic to avoid admitting you were wrong. How... brave.

Who is blamed for the 9-11 attacks, if not Al Qaeda?

[Grammatron]

Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.



And then, you saw the New York Times article. That article is wrong? A hoax, perhaps?

The PBS article is also wrong? The Bush Administration never thought that Al Qaeda was behind 9-11?

Your opening post claimed Rumsfeld said there was "Bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks" Yes or No.

[punchdrunk]

Originally Posted by rhoadp View Original:
Could you provide evidence for this? Thanks.

edit: "he" is Rumsfeld.

Read the transcript. Heck, watch the video.

I have. I have not found one instance where he denied that he claimed a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you could quote the statement from the transcript, please do so, it would be most helpful.

[Evolver]

Are you calling me part of the Bush propaganda machine? I did some searching on McGovern, came up with that transcript, and came to the conclusion that he's a whackjob rather on my own - no orders from Rove or anything. If I'm part of the Bush propaganda machine, I'm getting paid awfully poorly for my services. So from where I'm sitting, it's not about making all of Bush's critics into wingnuts (not all of them are), it's about McGovern actually BEING a whackjob.

As for the questions McGovern asked Rumsfeld, sure, his loony status alone doesn't disqualify the questions themselves. That wasn't quite my point, though: basically everything he asked has been asked before by plenty of other people, there's nothing new involved here. The only reason this is a story is because the press thinks McGovern's identity makes it a story, and I'm saying that's a dangerous path for Rumsfeld critics to follow. Go ahead and keep on asking whatever questions you like of Bush and the rest of the administration. But using McGovern as the tool to do it is going to backfire, because he IS a loon.
I believe you are wrong. The story is a story because someone was allowed to ask the questions of Rumsfeld that many of us would like to ask.

This administration has a history of filtering possible dissenters out of these sorts or gatherings. The focus should not be "is McGovern a loon", but should be "why did Rumsfeld respond as he did?". The identity of the questioner is completely irrelevant in this case.

And if you thought I was calling you part of the propaganda machine, I apologize for the misconception. My intention was to point out that anyone who criticizes Bush somehow gets painted as a loony, from Joe Wilson, to Wesley Clark, to Cindy Sheehan. It is very easy, especially when dealing with someone who is not a politician by trade, to scour through things they have said, and come up with something that doesn't make sense. I tend to take those things with a grain of salt.

[Manny]

Saying that he "blamed in it on the Jews" tends to make one believe he is anti-Semitic or believes in some sort of great Jewish consipiracy, when I think that's not the case. It's not hard to imagine the US and Israeli objectives for the Middle East are similar, in fact I think they should be. But one can criticize those similarities, question their best interest, and not hate Jews in the process.Remember John Conyers' "mock impeachment?" The one with those anti-Jewish flyers that Howard Dean had to disassociate the party from? Yeah, McGovern was there. He said that we went to war at Israel's bidding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html). Several other sources (though less linkworthy than the Post) reported that he repeated the lie about an Israeli company having advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. That lie also appeared on the flyers.

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

[CFLarsen]

Your opening post claimed Rumsfeld said there was "Bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks" Yes or No.

Yes. He did.

Unless you want to claim that he doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks.

Are you claiming that?

[Evolver]

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

No one is calling him an antiwar leader. He is no one's champion. He asked the right questions at the right time, that's all. You are diverting the issue.

[CFLarsen]

I have. I have not found one instance where he denied that he claimed a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. If you could quote the statement from the transcript, please do so, it would be most helpful.
Post #17.

[Ziggurat]

This administration has a history of filtering possible dissenters out of these sorts or gatherings. The focus should not be "is McGovern a loon", but should be "why did Rumsfeld respond as he did?". The identity of the questioner is completely irrelevant in this case.

Change that to "should be irrelevant in this case" and I'll agree. But I don't think it will be - I think his identity will get plenty of play in the press about this exchange.

My intention was to point out that anyone who criticizes Bush somehow gets painted as a loony, from Joe Wilson, to Wesley Clark, to Cindy Sheehan.

You've got it all wrong. There's much more variety than just loon when it comes to attacks on Bush critics. In your list above, Wilson is a liar, Clark is a Clintonite, and only Sheehan is the loon. Rove works hard to personalize those attacks, and it hurts his feelings when people don't appreciate the effort he puts into it ;)

[Grammatron]

Yes. He did.

Wrong, as per the article of New York Times (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html): Rumsfel not only claimed no such thing but the administration said they have found no links between Sadam and 9/11. Did you read that?

[Evolver]

Change that to "should be irrelevant in this case" and I'll agree. But I don't think it will be - I think his identity will get plenty of play in the press about this exchange.

Exactly!

[punchdrunk]

Remember John Conyers' "mock impeachment?" The one with those anti-Jewish flyers that Howard Dean had to disassociate the party from? Yeah, McGovern was there. He said that we went to war at Israel's bidding (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html). Several other sources (though less linkworthy than the Post) reported that he repeated the lie about an Israeli company having advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks. That lie also appeared on the flyers.

Walk away from this guy. He's not an anti-war activist. He's just rooting for the other side.

Links are always good, and I appreciate it. I will quote the relevant part about McGovern:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

If he truly said that "Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," then I will agree with you that he belongs in the batcave. However, as we've seen from the OP, quoted words can be taken drastically out of context, so I'm not quite ready to put a bow on him and send him off to the funny farm. However, I do feel his involvement in this "proceeding" and some of the other things he has said puts his motives in considerable question.

[punchdrunk]

Post #17.

Claus, that post is of him claiming a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not denying he made that link.

[CFLarsen]

Wrong, as per the article of New York Times (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html): Rumsfel not only claimed no such thing

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

Mr. Rumsfeld said that recently declassified intelligence reports about suspected ties between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, including the presence of senior members of Al Qaeda in Baghdad in "recent periods," were "factual" and "exactly accurate."

You are in denial.

but the administration said they have found no links between Sadam and 9/11. Did you read that?

....despite earlier assurances. Did you read that?

Are you claiming that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no.

[punchdrunk]

If he truly said that "Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon," then I will agree with you that he belongs in the batcave. However, as we've seen from the OP, quoted words can be taken drastically out of context, so I'm not quite ready to put a bow on him and send him off to the funny farm. However, I do feel his involvement in this "proceeding" and some of the other things he has said puts his motives in considerable question.

To further clarify this: I would like to see him quoted as saying "Bush was doing the bidding...", not just someone else saying he said it, because, as is all too obvious in this thread, what is said and what someone says was said are two different things.*

*jeez I sound like freaking Rumsfeld now...

[CFLarsen]

Claus, that post is of him claiming a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq, not denying he made that link.

Sorry, my bad. I misread you.

The issue isn't whether he has denied that there is a link between AQ and Iraq. The issue is the he denies that he ever said he had "bulletproof" evidence of a link between Iraq and AQ.







OMG!! I admitted an error!! I am soooo sorry to disappoint the people who claim I never admit to errors!

[Grammatron]

Sorry, my bad. I misread you.

The issue isn't whether he has denied that there is a link between AQ and Iraq. The issue is the he denies that he ever said he had "bulletproof" evidence of a link between Iraq and AQ.

Wrong.

Your claim
(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003
According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

NYT Articles from that day: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."...

"Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States. Some intelligence and law enforcement officials said today..."

Conclusion: Your claim is wrong.

[CFLarsen]

Wrong.

Your claim


NYT Articles from that day: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."...

"Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States. Some intelligence and law enforcement officials said today..."

Conclusion: Your claim is wrong.

The issue is not whether there is a link between Iraq and AQ. The issue is whether such a link was claimed. It was.

That is a fact.

Unless you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks. Do you claim that, yes or no?

[punchdrunk]

The issue is not whether there is a link between Iraq and AQ. The issue is whether such a link was claimed. It was.

That is a fact.

Where did Rumsfeld deny this?

[CFLarsen]

Where did Rumsfeld deny this?
I told you: I misread you.

[Grammatron]

The issue is not whether there is a link between Iraq and AQ. The issue is whether such a link was claimed. It was.


That was not your original claim.

This is your claim:
(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003
According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Do you admit it's wrong?

[punchdrunk]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html


When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets this crap confused! :)

[CFLarsen]

That was not your original claim.

This is your claim:


Do you admit it's wrong?

It's not wrong. Unless you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks. Do you claim that, yes or no?

You have ignored this question for some time now. Care to answer it?

[Grammatron]

It's not wrong. Unless you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks. Do you claim that, yes or no?

This is not what you claimed originally, this is your claim.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003
According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

[CFLarsen]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets this crap confused! :)

So why all this confusion?

That's the key issue here.

[Grammatron]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html



I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets this crap confused! :)
Fancy political tripple-speak.

[CFLarsen]

This is not what you claimed originally, this is your claim.
Answer the question:

Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

[Jocko]

So why all this confusion?

That's the key issue here.

Seems to me the key is that you expect us to agree with you that Rumsfeld has stated that:

Iraq was involved with al Qaeda; and
al Qaeda was involved with 9/11

Which is all well and good till you hit the logical wall by assuming those two truths (which he HAS said) add up to:

Therefore, Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Which is a reasoning error only an idiot would make.

You're being dishonest as well as pompous... that's the key issue here.

[CFLarsen]

Seems to me the key is that you expect us to agree with you that Rumsfeld has stated that:

Iraq was involved with al Qaeda; and
al Qaeda was involved with 9/11

Which is all well and good till you hit the logical wall by assuming those two truths (which he HAS said) add up to:

Therefore, Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Which is a reasoning error only an idiot would make.

Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11? I don't know how you interpret "involve", but, personally, I don't think there is any evidence that Iraq - as in Saddam Hussein - was involved with 9/11. As in "no planning, no support, no action taken".

[Jocko]

Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11? I don't know how you interpret "involve", but, personally, I don't think there is any evidence that Iraq - as in Saddam Hussein - was involved with 9/11. As in "no planning, no support, no action taken".

And likewise, no quote from Rumsfeld or anyone else saying there WAS a connection. As in, "didn't happen, wasn't said, you're talking out your hat again."

See, if there was such a quote, Mark would have it tattooed onto his forehead by now. But he hasn't, cuz there ain't. And all the leading questions in the world won't change that, Claus. Sorry to ruin your weekend.

[CFLarsen]

And likewise, no quote from Rumsfeld or anyone else saying there WAS a connection. As in, "didn't happen, wasn't said, you're talking out your hat again."

See, if there was such a quote, Mark would have it tattooed onto his forehead by now. But he hasn't, cuz there ain't. And all the leading questions in the world won't change that, Claus. Sorry to ruin your weekend.
Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

[Grammatron]

Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11?
In your opening post:
(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003
According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

[Jocko]

Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

The question, dear Claus, is when did Rumsfeld say that?

If you can't answer, you have no point. I really wish you'd think these things through before polluting the forum with more pointless threads like this one.

[CFLarsen]

The question, dear Claus, is when did Rumsfeld say that?

If you can't answer, you have no point. I really wish you'd think these things through before polluting the forum with more pointless threads like this one.
Where have I said that Iraq was involved in 9/11?

[CFLarsen]

In your opening post:
That doesn't mean that I claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Answer the question: Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

That seems a very hard question for you to answer. Now, why is that.....?

[Grammatron]

CFL, just give up. You clearly don't have a drumstick to stand on, once again.

[Grammatron]

That doesn't mean that I claim that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Answer the question: Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

My claim is simple: that your claim of the claim that Rumsfeld claimed is not the claim that you claimed in the OP. Thus your current claim of his claim is not the claim we should be discussing not matter what you claim it should be.

[CFLarsen]

CFL, just give up. You clearly don't have a drumstick to stand on, once again.
Answer the question: Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

What could be easier? Just type Yes or No.

[Grammatron]

Answer the question: Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

What could be easier? Just type Yes or No.

My claim is simple: that your claim of the claim that Rumsfeld claimed is not the claim that you claimed in the OP. Thus your current claim of his claim is not the claim we should be discussing not matter what you claim it should be.

[CFLarsen]

My claim is simple: that your claim of the claim that Rumsfeld claimed is not the claim that you claimed in the OP. Thus your current claim of his claim is not the claim we should be discussing not matter what you claim it should be.
If you don't want to engage in a serious discussion, please stay out of it.

[CFLarsen]

My claim is simple: that your claim of the claim that Rumsfeld claimed is not the claim that you claimed in the OP. Thus your current claim of his claim is not the claim we should be discussing not matter what you claim it should be.
OK, you chicken out of a serious discussion.

Your choice. Your loss of credibility.

[Grammatron]

If you don't want to engage in a serious discussion, please stay out of it.

People keep telling you the same, yet here you are in Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues once again.

Let's recap, shell we?

1) You submit a claim that Rumsfeld link Saddam and 9/11
2) I refuted it with the article from which you claimed it originated.
3) You changed the subject and refuse to acknowledge #1

You can stump your drumsticks all you want and ignore it happened, but there it is, waiting for you to accept you are wrong so we can move on in this discussion. Until then I'll reply with your original claim.

[Cain]

I was listening to the radio yesterday when I had heard about this exchange. Then the host said the "heckler" was former CIA analyst Ray McGovern. I recognized the name, "Hey, that's the guy who has written for _Counterpunch_," and I knew he was going to get smeared.

It's almost astonishing how f*cked up the resident, mutually supporting, circle-jerking conservatives have become. Rumsfeld failed miserably when it came prosecuting the war, and he has been called on his lies. See for instance the CBS program with Friedman and Schieffer. Now there's this whole business of knowing exactly where those threatening WMDs were located (around Tikrit!).

It doesn't matter, though. The cognitive dissonance will eventually overwhelm the hopelessly irrational Rumsfeld apologists and they'll pull their own Kodiaks ("I never defended the guy!").

What do you expect from people who cannot hold the Bush administration to the same standard as Michael Moore?

[CFLarsen]

People keep telling you the same, yet here you are in Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues once again.

Let's recap, shell we?

1) You submit a claim that Rumsfeld link Saddam and 9/11
2) I refuted it with the article from which you claimed it originated.
3) You changed the subject and refuse to acknowledge #1

You can stump your drumsticks all you want and ignore it happened, but there it is, waiting for you to accept you are wrong so we can move on in this discussion. Until then I'll reply with your original claim.

Until you answer it, I will reply with the question you seem most anxious to avoid:

Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

[Grammatron]

Until you answer it, I will reply with the question you seem most anxious to avoid:

I am not avoiding it, I simply refuse to give you satisfaction of answering it because you do not want to acknowledge your claim once the facts are brought up. When that happens I will be happy to answer any and all of your questions.

[Rob Lister]

I'm not sure this will clear it up for CFL, but due deligence is necessary. Here are Rummy's claims to date expressed as set theory...no language barrier involved.

[corplinx]

Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

Nope he didn't say it. But he did say that America has links to Israel and therefore the latest assasination of a Hamas leader is therefore linked to America. Boy, logical fallacies sure are fun!

[a_unique_person]

I can't believe someone made a thread about something that is as normal as sex.

Really, come on!!!!

Is anybody suprised that a politician would lie?

It's about starting a war half way around the world based on lies.

[Tricky]

It's about starting a war half way around the world based on lies.
But he didn't do it while under oath. That's what makes a lie really really important, not the result of the lie.

[Zep]

Put it this way: I wouldn't trust Rumsfeld as far as I could roll him with my left hand, regardless of which side of politics he was from.

[CFLarsen]

I am not avoiding it, I simply refuse to give you satisfaction of answering it because you do not want to acknowledge your claim once the facts are brought up. When that happens I will be happy to answer any and all of your questions.
Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

[CFLarsen]

I'm not sure this will clear it up for CFL, but due deligence is necessary. Here are Rummy's claims to date expressed as set theory...no language barrier involved.

There is nothing to clear up - at least not for me. So far, I have not seen sufficient links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

The question is, what has Rummy claimed, and why is he lying about it?

Nope he didn't say it. But he did say that America has links to Israel and therefore the latest assasination of a Hamas leader is therefore linked to America. Boy, logical fallacies sure are fun!

OK, so Rummy says that Al Qaeda is not behind 9-11.

Could you explain to me just who Rummy says the war on terror is fought against?

It's about starting a war half way around the world based on lies.

Indeed. This is not about Rummy lying about getting a blowjob from an intern. This is about lying about a war that has cost thousands of lives of American soldiers (not to mention the many, many thousands civilian casualties).

I would think the latter to be somewhat more important. Apparently, such sentiments are not shared by all.

[Grammatron]

Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

Thank you for agreeing you are wrong and this discussion is over.

[CFLarsen]

Thank you for agreeing you are wrong and this discussion is over.
I have agreed to no such thing.

Do you claim that Rumsfeld doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks? Yes or no?

[Cain]

Put it this way: I wouldn't trust Rumsfeld as far as I could roll him with my left hand, regardless of which side of politics he was from.

Exactly. The liar frame obscures more than it elucidates. Have we learned nothing from Frankfurt's _On Bullsh!t_? Proving a lie can be difficult, especially when it comes to the dangerously incompetent and totally unaware nincompoops driving this administration. A better frame is to ask if Rumsfeld & co. are reliable sources of information. Are they trustworthy? No, they're bullsh!tters, and McGovern brought up prime examples. More than two-thirds of U.S. citizens at one time believed Saddam was involved in 9/11, and that's because of administration propaganda. Just as Bush would invoke 9/11 whenever talking about Iraq, Rumsfeld invokes "the troops" whenever someone mentions how badly he f*cked up this war of choice.

The fact is you can't reason with the war apologists -- Grammatron, Ziggurat, Corplinx, Jocko, Manny, etc. -- in this thread because they're hopelessly irrational. It doesn't matter if you prove Rumsfeld lied because "everyone lies" and, besides, the war is still morally and strategically justified (in their tiny minds). They need a face-saving mechanism. For Andrew Sullivan and the self-proclaimed "decent Left", this was the administration's bungling. Those folks argued the war was right, but Bush messed it up! For the resident tendentious, party hacks that won't work because they're too emotionally invested in supporting the administration; instead they need to find a way to pin blame a Democrat or the United Nations (or France). This will take years.

[Rob Lister]

Cain, the assertion made by CFL is thus far unsupported. The "proof" he provided in his opening post turned out to be utterly false.

He has yet to retract his claim or provide other "proof" supporting it.

Instead, he attempts to change the subject.

Rummy may indeed be a liar but CFL has still not provided proof of it.

That is proof of someone else being a liar.

[CFLarsen]

Cain, the assertion made by CFL is thus far unsupported. The "proof" he provided in his opening post turned out to be utterly false.

He has yet to retract his claim or provide other "proof" supporting it.

Instead, he attempts to change the subject.

Rummy may indeed be a liar but CFL has still not provided proof of it.

That is proof of someone else being a liar.

Do you want to claim that he doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks?

Yes or no, please.

[CFLarsen]

"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq."
New York Times, September 27th, 2002

President Bush's national security adviser Wednesday said Saddam Hussein has sheltered al Qaeda terrorists in Baghdad and helped train some in chemical weapons development -- information she said has been gleaned from captives in the ongoing war on terrorism.

The comments by Condoleezza Rice were the strongest and most specific to date on the White House's accusations linking al Qaeda and Iraq.
...
At the same time, she cautioned that "no one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11th, so we don't want to push this too far."
CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/)

Claim: Al Qaeda and Saddam are linked.

Claim: Saddam cannot be linked to controlling Al Qaeda.

The only way that Rumsfeld couldn't have lied is that Al Qaeda isn't blamed for 9-11.

But, wait! They are:

With the administration trying to build support at the United Nations and in Congress for possible military action against Iraq, the White House in recent days has sought to place its push to depose Saddam in the context of the war on terrorism, warning that Iraq could give nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to terrorist groups like al Qaeda -- the group responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans in four attacks September 11, 2001.
CNN (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/09/25/us.iraq.alqaeda/)

Claim: Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11.

This is political double-speak.

It is fascinating - and scary - to see how far war apologists will go in order to defend those responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and many, many thousands of civilians.

Politics can be very dangerous indeed.

[Rob Lister]

Do you want to claim that he doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks?

Yes or no, please.

you're welcome

[CFLarsen]

you're welcome
Do you want to claim that he doesn't claim that Al Qaeda is behind the September 11th attacks?

Yes or no, please.

[Rob Lister]

Claim: Al Qaeda and Saddam are linked.

Claim: Saddam cannot be linked to controlling Al Qaeda.

The only way that Rumsfeld couldn't have lied is that Al Qaeda isn't blamed for 9-11.

But, wait! They are:



Claim: Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11.

This is political double-speak.

It is fascinating - and scary - to see how far war apologists will go in order to defend those responsible for the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, and many, many thousands of civilians.

Politics can be very dangerous indeed.


Your logic falls.
You made a claim in your opening post and have not yet provided the evidence to support your claim.

[CFLarsen]

Your logic falls.

Where does it fail?

Don't just say that it fails.

Show me.

[Rob Lister]

Where does it fail?

Don't just say that it fails.

Show me.

I did.

You made a claim in your opening post and have not yet provided the evidence to support your claim.

[Pyrrho]

I wouldn't want a Secretary of Defense who couldn't lie competently. Or a President who couldn't lie competently, either.

Anyway, it is possible for Saddam Hussein to have had links to Al-Qaeda and yet have had no controlling part in Al-Qaeda's operations. Providing real estate for training camps and/or providing material assistance doesn't equate to Saddam Hussein having had anything to do with the September 11 attacks. It is a mistake to think that Al-Qaeda operates as a monolithic organization.

If Rumsfeld has lied about having said certain things in public, it should be a simple matter to find public record of those public statements. We await that evidence. Until such evidence is provided, it is not certain that Rumsfeld is a liar...as far as this topic is concerned.

[CFLarsen]

I did.

You made a claim in your opening post and have not yet provided the evidence to support your claim.

Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.

Explain where the logic breaks down.

[Rob Lister]

Repeating a claim doesn't make it true.

Explain where the logic breaks down.

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

[CFLarsen]

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

And you just blinked.

[a_unique_person]

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108_2/pdfs_inves/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf



Number of Misleading Statements. The Iraq on the Record database contains
237 misleading statements about the threat posed by Iraq that were made by
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary Rumsfeld, Secretary Powell,
and National Security Advisor Rice. These statements were made in 125 separate
appearances, consisting of 40 speeches, 26 press conferences and briefings, 53
interviews, 4 written statements, and 2 congressional testimonies. 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.
Ten of the statements were simply false.






Statements by Secretary Rumsfeld. Between May 22, 2002, and November 2,
2003, Secretary Rumsfeld made 52 misleading statements about the threat posed
by Iraq in 23 separate public appearances.
Some of the misleading statements by Secretary Rumsfeld include his statement
on November 14, 2002, that within “a week, or a month” Saddam Hussein could
give his weapons of mass destruction to al Qaeda, which could use them to attack
the United States and kill “30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings”; his statement
on January 29, 2003, that Saddam Hussein’s regime “recently was discovered
seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa”; and his statement on July
13, 2003, that there “was never any debate” about whether Iraq had a nuclear
program.





These misleading statements have continued through at least January 2004. On
January 22, 2004, Vice President Cheney said in a National Public Radio
interview, “I think there’s overwhelming evidence that there was a connection
between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. . . . I’m very confident that there
was an established relationship there.”4 He also said in the same interview, “we
know . . . that prior to our going in that he had spent time and effort acquiring
mobile biological weapons labs, and we’re quite confident he did, in fact, have
such a program. We’ve found a couple of semi trailers at this point which we
believe were, in fact, part of that program.” As described below, both of these
assertions were misleading in that they failed to disclose the serious doubts held
by intelligence officials.





In one instance, Secretary Rumsfeld said that Iraq could give weapons of mass
destruction to al Qaeda in “a week, or a month,” resulting in the deaths of up to
100,000 people. On November 14, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld stated:
Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month,
and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and
transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda,
and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United
States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass
destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being
killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings.”11





Despite these uncertainties among the intelligence officials, the five
Administration officials made 45 misleading statements in 35 appearances about
Iraq’s possession of chemical or biological weapons. Often these statements were
misleading because they projected certainty about their claims. Secretary Powell,
for example, claimed, “there is no doubt in our mind that he still has chemical
weapons stocks.”60 Secretary Rumsfeld stated: “He has at this moment
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.”61 Vice President Cheney
asserted: “We know they have biological and chemical weapons.”62 And
President Bush said bluntly, “he’s got them.”63



It is a lie alright. Take a statement by the intelligence forces, remove the ambiguity, and you have a lie.

[CFLarsen]

When you expose a lie, it is helpful if the font size is big enough.... ;)

[Rob Lister]

And you just blinked.

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

[CFLarsen]

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.
You need to study what a "strawman" is.

[Rob Lister]

You need to study what a "strawman" is.

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

[CFLarsen]

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.
Explain where the logic breaks down.

[Rob Lister]

Explain where the logic breaks down.

I have. Here, I'll do it again...

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

[Tricky]

I have. Here, I'll do it again...

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.
Come on, Rob. These tapes have been all over the news. But since you insist, Here is a link to a transcript of where Rumsfeld made those statements. Perhaps you can trust it because it is the Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html).

[Rob Lister]

Come on, Rob. These tapes have been all over the news. But since you insist, Here is a link to a transcript of where Rumsfeld made those statements. Perhaps you can trust it because it is the Pentagon (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html).

Perhaps you can quote the part of that transcript where Rummy claims Saddam had something to do with 9/11

Doesn't seem to be there.

So, for Clause

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

I'll help

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

Perhaps you can quote the part of that transcript where Rummy claims Saddam had something to do with 9/11[/I]

(Cough)

If you could be honest for a moment.

Rummy claims Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda.

Correct?

[Rob Lister]

(Cough)

If you could be honest for a moment.

Rummy claims Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda.

Correct?

Nobody is claiming anything to the contrary...

So...

Perhaps you can quote the part of that transcript where Rummy claims Saddam had something to do with 9/11

Doesn't seem to be there.

So, for Clause

Refer to your opening post.

Link to a transcript of rummy making that claim.

You can't strawman your way out of that.

I'll help

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

Nobody is claiming anything to the contrary...

Thank you.

Perhaps you can quote the part of that transcript where Rummy claims Saddam had something to do with 9/11

Perhaps you can quote the part of my OP where this is claimed? The word used is "links":

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

What, exactly, is your problem?

[Tricky]

From the interview of Sept. 10, 2003 (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec03/rumsfeld_09-10.html).

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow will be the second anniversary of 9/11. An airplane went into the Pentagon, of course, into... two planes went into New York and another one in Pennsylvania. But a plane went into your building not far from where you and I are sitting. You were in the building at the time. Do you still think about that?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Of course. I mean we lost hundreds of people and thousands nationwide.
JIM LEHRER: I mean, do you think about those moments?
DONALD RUMSFELD: Sure, you bet. And I also think about the statement that was made to me shortly thereafter when I was in the Gulf and a senior leader there said to me, Maybe that was a blessing in disguise. Maybe that will wake up the world to the fact that there are people out teaching people to kill innocent men, women and children. They're being taught that as young kids, and if the world doesn't wake up, there will be so many of those people and they will have weapons so powerful that maybe there be will a 9/11 -- a September 11 -- not where 3,000 are killed but 30,000 or 300,000. And that would be a terrible thing, he said. We've got... this has to be a wake-up call for the world.
It would take a truly determined act of denial to suggest that Rumsfeld was not trying to tie those who possessed the purported weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to the 9/11 attacks. You would have to say something like "Oh, he just meant people like that, not the same people." Will those who are saying Rumsfeld didn't lie choose this tactic? Will they ignore the glaringly obvious attempt to tie the attacks to Iraq (where those "weapons so powerful" were said to be) and continue to suggest that the fact that more than half the country still thinks Iraq was involve in 911 has nothing to do with statements made by Rumsfeld and others of the Bush administration? Or will they fall back on "Rumsfeld didn't say it, that unnamed senior leader said it. He just repeated what he said."

Not if they want to be taken seriously.

[CFLarsen]

If the war on terror is not fought against Al Qaeda.....who, then?

[Tricky]

Ah, here's the "bulletproof" comment. (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html)



Secretary Powell said that there were confirmed "linkages" between Al Qaeda and Iraq, but that "perhaps part of the confusion is that we‘re learning more over time as we get access to more and more" Al Qaeda prisoners and Iraqi defectors.
Mr. Rumsfeld explained today that he had met with his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz, and other top aides about a week ago, to figure out a way to declassify some of the information about Iraq-Al Qaeda links. He said intelligence analysts came back with "five or six sentences" that were "bulletproof" and could be cited in briefings with allies, lawmakers and the public.

In fairness, he went on to say:

"But they‘re not photographs," Mr. Rumsfeld said today. "They‘re not beyond a reasonable doubt. They, in some cases, are assessments from limited number of sources."

Which leads one to wonder what "bulletproof" means to Rumsfeld. It sounds like he is just using buzzwords to stir people up.

[davefoc]

With respect to the various parties involved in the dispute with CFL it all appears a little silly.

From, very early on in this thread both sides must have understood what the other side was saying. And an intellectually honest approach would have been to express an understanding of what the other side's view was and to acknowledge that there is some logic behind it.

CFL says that Rumsfeld claimed that Hussein was involved with 9-11 because Hussein was involved with Al-queda and Al-queda was involved with 9-11. This is not illogical. For instance, it would be factually correct to say that the prior government of Afghanistan was involved with the 9-11 attacks because they were involved with Al-queda. That is a reasonable thing to say even if they were not directly involved with the details of 9-11 planning. But it would also be reasonable to say that the prior government of Afghanistan was not involved with the 9-11 attacks because their level of involvement fell below what some people might reasonably construe "involved" to mean. Because of the ambiguities of language the issue can not be resolved completely no matter how many back and forth posts are made with respect to it.

On a slightly differeent issue, the claim that Hussein was involved with Al-queda was based on very slim evidence that has subsequently been discredited. The Al-queda connection is just one more example of the administration failing to acknowledge that their claims were based on evidence that was highly disputed at the time of the claim.

I, personally, have no doubt that the administration had substantial reason to doubt most of their claims surrounding the justification for war inclduing the nuclear claims, the chemical weapons claims and the Al-queda connection claims. Given that, it is reasonable to question exactly what were the driving forces behind the decision to go to war for this administration. I don't know what it was, but I think the Israel tie in seems to be part of the picture and I don't automatically reject somebody as a nutjob that puts that forth as a possibility.

[CFLarsen]

Which leads one to wonder what "bulletproof" means to Rumsfeld. It sounds like he is just using buzzwords to stir people up.

When you use those words to lead nations into battle, it is very serious.

[Evolver]

It's weasel words. Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney etc. were claiming links between Hussein & Al-Qaeda, while immediately mentioning 9/11 as many times as possible. If you think the intention wasn't to give the impression, without directly stating it, that Saddam was linked to 9/11, that is somewhat naive.

Maybe literally, it was not a lie, but it was deliberately misleading. Other statements, such as the ones about WMDs, have been proven to be lies.

[Rob Lister]

Did you fall for it?

[CFLarsen]

Did you fall for it?
Perhaps you can quote the part of my OP where it is claimed that Rummy claims Saddam had something to do with 9/11?

[Rob Lister]

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[Evolver]

Did you fall for it?
Relevance?

I had heard previous reports of Husseins dislike of Bin Laden. I had also heard stories of Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq before 9/11. I had no idea that the WMD line was a lie. I was suspicious of the linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda, and by association, 9/11.
OK? How is it relevant to whether or not Rummy lied?

[Dr Adequate]

Bush : "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html)


Cheney : Iraq is "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." * (http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html)


Bush : "We're rolling back the terrorist threat, not on the fringes of its influence but at the heart of its power." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030912-3.html)


QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. You've repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all?

Cheney : [waffles]

QUESTION: So you stand by the statements?

Cheney : Absolutely. Absolutely. * (http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?Speaker=Vice+President+Richard+Cheney)


American soldier serving in Iraq : "There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback." * (http://www.unknownnews.net/0619-1.html)


Bush (in the "mission accomplished" speech) : "We have not forgotten the victims of September the eleventh-the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." * (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/)


USA Today : "Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda." * (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)


Powell in February 2001 : "[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml)


Bush : "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)


Cheney : "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Cheney : ""But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Cheney : "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." * (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)


Rumsfeld, (two months after the previous quote) : "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." * (http://www.thefourreasons.org/RumsfeldQA.htm)


Downing Street Memo : "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." * (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)


Bush "The best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It's up to him to make his decision." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021204-1.html)


Bush : "Even though [sic] what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html)


Rumsfeld : "We know where they [the weapons] are." * (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html)


Bush : "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html)


Cheney : "The streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Downing Street Memo : "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." * (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)


Bush : "In a free Iraq, there will be no more torture chambers and rape rooms." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)


Bush : "When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will." * (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/)


Bush on campaign, 2000 : "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/11/politics/main240442.shtml)


Fleischer : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/27/se.02.html)


Rumsfeld : "The infrastructure of that country was not terribly damaged by the war at all." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/se.01.html)


Rumsfeld : "You know, I just came in from Baghdad, and there are now over 100 newspapers in the free press in Iraq in a free Iraq, where people are able to say whatever they wish." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/se.01.html)


NYT : "The scene for the uprising was set a week ago, when the American authorities closed a popular Baghdad newspaper, Al Hawza, that was the mouthpiece for Mr. Sadr, because of what they called inaccurate reporting in the paper that incited hatred for the Americans." * (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html?ei=5007&en=39f1e22b1ebfd2c4&ex=1396497600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=)


Rumsfeld : "It has has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml)


Wolfowitz : "This is not a war about oil." * (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02262003_200302268.html)


Wolfowitz : "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." * (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm)


Rumsfeld ""Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml)


Bush : "The credibility of the United States is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030609-4.html)


Bush : "I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war." * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59518-2004Aug12.html?nav%3Drss_politics/administration/whbriefing)


Rumsfeld : "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" * (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm)


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8775/missionaccomplished6tu.jpg

[WildCat]

Bush : "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html)


Cheney : Iraq is "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." * (http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id169.html)


Bush : "We're rolling back the terrorist threat, not on the fringes of its influence but at the heart of its power." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030912-3.html)


QUESTION: When I was in Iraq, some of the soldiers said they believed they were fighting because of the Sept. 11 attacks and because they thought Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda. You've repeatedly cited such links. . . . I wanted to ask you what you'd say to those soldiers, and were those soldiers misled at all?

Cheney : [waffles]

QUESTION: So you stand by the statements?

Cheney : Absolutely. Absolutely. * (http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/index.asp?Speaker=Vice+President+Richard+Cheney)


American soldier serving in Iraq : "There's a picture of the World Trade Center hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my Kevlar. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback." * (http://www.unknownnews.net/0619-1.html)


Bush (in the "mission accomplished" speech) : "We have not forgotten the victims of September the eleventh-the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got." * (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/)


USA Today : "Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country. Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda." * (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm)


Powell in February 2001 : "[Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/28/iraq/main575469.shtml)


Bush : "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)


Cheney : "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Cheney : ""But we do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapon." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Cheney : "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." * (http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm)


Rumsfeld, (two months after the previous quote) : "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons." * (http://www.thefourreasons.org/RumsfeldQA.htm)


Downing Street Memo : "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." * (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)


Bush "The best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It's up to him to make his decision." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/20021204-1.html)


Bush : "Even though [sic] what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would have called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html)


Rumsfeld : "We know where they [the weapons] are." * (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html)


Bush : "But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/g8/interview5.html)


Cheney : "The streets in Basra and Baghdad are sure to erupt in joy in the same way the throngs in Kabul greeted the Americans. Extremists in the region would have to rethink their strategy of Jihad. Moderates throughout the region would take heart." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html)


Downing Street Memo : "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action." * (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html)


Bush : "In a free Iraq, there will be no more torture chambers and rape rooms." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html)


Bush : "When Iraqi civilians looked into the faces of our service men and women, they saw strength and kindness and good will." * (http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/)


Bush on campaign, 2000 : "I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/10/11/politics/main240442.shtml)


Fleischer : "During the campaign, the president did not express, as you put it, disdain for nation-building." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0302/27/se.02.html)


Rumsfeld : "The infrastructure of that country was not terribly damaged by the war at all." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/se.01.html)


Rumsfeld : "You know, I just came in from Baghdad, and there are now over 100 newspapers in the free press in Iraq in a free Iraq, where people are able to say whatever they wish." * (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0309/10/se.01.html)


NYT : "The scene for the uprising was set a week ago, when the American authorities closed a popular Baghdad newspaper, Al Hawza, that was the mouthpiece for Mr. Sadr, because of what they called inaccurate reporting in the paper that incited hatred for the Americans." * (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/05/international/middleeast/05IRAQ.html?ei=5007&en=39f1e22b1ebfd2c4&ex=1396497600&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=)


Rumsfeld : "It has has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with oil." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml)


Wolfowitz : "This is not a war about oil." * (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Feb2003/n02262003_200302268.html)


Wolfowitz : "Let's look at it simply. The most important difference between North Korea and Iraq is that economically, we just had no choice in Iraq. The country swims on a sea of oil." * (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm)


Rumsfeld ""Five days or five weeks or five months, but it certainly isn't going to last any longer than that." * (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/15/world/main529569.shtml)


Bush : "The credibility of the United States is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful." * (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030609-4.html)


Bush : "I know what I'm doing when it comes to winning this war." * (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59518-2004Aug12.html?nav%3Drss_politics/administration/whbriefing)


Rumsfeld : "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?" * (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/executive/rumsfeld-memo.htm)


http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/8775/missionaccomplished6tu.jpg
And which one of those links has anything to do w/ the OP of this thread?

[CFLarsen]

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

New York Times. And a month later. You are perfectly aware of that.

What is your problem? Why do you willingly ignore evidence?

Remember, we are talking "links" and not - as you dishonestly twisted it to - "something to do with".

You can't even show where I make that claim. All we get is repetitions of your unfounded claim.

Show me. Put up or shut up.

[Rob Lister]

Relevance?

I had heard previous reports of Husseins dislike of Bin Laden. I had also heard stories of Bush wanting to go to war with Iraq before 9/11. I had no idea that the WMD line was a lie. I was suspicious of the linking of Iraq to Al-Qaeda, and by association, 9/11.
OK? How is it relevant to whether or not Rummy lied?

The relevance is that if you didn't fall for it and I didn't fall for it and that the adminstration even took pains to say they had no evidence of such a saddam/911 link, then you tell me the relevance.

You brought it up, not me. You state they never said it. Tell CFL that. You state they implied it. Did you infer that which they did not imply? you state you did not. I state the same. Gee, where does that leave us?

[Rob Lister]

New York Times. And a month later. You are perfectly aware of that.

What is your problem? Why do you willingly ignore evidence?

Remember, we are talking "links" and not - as you dishonestly twisted it to - "something to do with".

You can't even show where I make that claim. All we get is repetitions of your unfounded claim.

Show me. Put up or shut up.


According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.
Prove it.

Otherwise, I will shut up when you put up. Your assertion. Prove it.

[CFLarsen]

The relevance is that if you didn't fall for it and I didn't fall for it and that the adminstration even took pains to say they had no evidence of such a saddam/911 link, then you tell me the relevance.

You brought it up, not me. You state they never said it. Tell CFL that. You state they implied it. Did you infer that which they did not imply? you state you did not. I state the same. Gee, where does that leave us?
With you as a RummyBot.

[Rob Lister]

With you as a RummyBot.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[Dr Adequate]

And which one of those links has anything to do w/ the OP of this thread? I guess the most relevant links would be the ones where Rumsfeld lies.

[varwoche]

Did you fall for it? Many did fall for it...
Question: Do you think the Bush administration did or did not imply that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11th attacks?

Did imply: 71%
Did not imply: 25%

Question: Is it your impression the US has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the Al Qaeda terrorist organization?

Believe evidence of close links to al-Qaeda found:

Full sample: 52%
Firm supporters of the war: 72%
Republicans: 68%
Republicans following Iraq news closely: 78% PIPA July 2003 (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqWMD_Jul03/IraqWMD%20Jul03%20rpt.pdf)

[Rob Lister]

Now ask those same people to locate Iraq on a map.

[Dr Adequate]

How is that relevant?

If you are trying to suggest that the collective ignorance of the American people makes them easily duped, then that's as may be. But it hardly excuses deceiving them, does it?

[Evolver]

The relevance is that if you didn't fall for it and I didn't fall for it and that the adminstration even took pains to say they had no evidence of such a saddam/911 link, then you tell me the relevance.

You brought it up, not me. You state they never said it. Tell CFL that. You state they implied it. Did you infer that which they did not imply? you state you did not. I state the same. Gee, where does that leave us?

It leaves is with an argument on semantics. I said they never said it directly, but I believe their aim was to make people believe it, while leaving room for deniability. At the time, it did sound to me like that was what they were trying to get us to believe. And look at the polls from back then. It apparently worked. It doesn't matter if I didn't believe them. I don't think they were aiming at me.

I'm not telling Claus anything. There are people who delight in finding faults in any of Claus' arguments. I am not one of them. He stated in the OP that Rumsfeld was caught lying on 2 occasions. The first, regarding WMDs, and having "bulletproof" evidence of where they are, is obvious. The second is more ambiguous. Because of the careful wording the Bushies used, they can weasel out of most of the claims that they specifically stated that Saddam was behind 9/11. That's where it becomes a matter of semantics. Is it a lie if they don't specifically say it, but are trying to convey the idea?

[Rob Lister]

It leaves is with an argument on semantics. I said they never said it directly, but I believe their aim was to make people believe it, while leaving room for deniability.

What you believe may or may not be true, but it doesn't address the only reason I"m posting here: to get clause to support his assertion.

To witt:
According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

I could care less either way but it's fun to watch him build strawman after strawmen to try to wiggle out of it. Semantics? CFL is the master.

[Evolver]

What you believe may or may not be true, but it doesn't address the only reason I"m posting here: to get clause to support his assertion.

To witt:


I could care less either way but it's fun to watch him build strawman after strawmen to try to wiggle out of it. Semantics? CFL is the master.
In that case, I'll stay out of it.

[CFLarsen]

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.
A True RummyBot (TM)

[Rob Lister]

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

What you believe may or may not be true, but it doesn't address the only reason I"m posting here: to get clause to support his assertion.

What assertion? I haven't claimed that Rummy said that Saddam had "something to do" with 9-11. I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence of this. So far, you haven't been able to.

I am beginning to think that you are not able to at all.

I could care less either way but it's fun to watch him build strawman after strawmen to try to wiggle out of it. Semantics? CFL is the master.

Saying what? That there was a link between Saddam and 9-11? That, you already agreed to.

I don't see any evidence that anyone said that Saddam had "something to do" - your words - with 9-11.

You are building a strawman here. Not me.

[Rob Lister]

What assertion? I haven't claimed that Rummy said that Saddam had "something to do" with 9-11. I have asked you repeatedly to provide evidence of this. So far, you haven't been able to.

I am beginning to think that you are not able to at all.



Saying what? That there was a link between Saddam and 9-11? That, you already agreed to.

I don't see any evidence that anyone said that Saddam had "something to do" - your words - with 9-11.

You are building a strawman here. Not me.

To reiterate:

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

To reiterate:

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.

Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.


I don't see any evidence that anyone said that Saddam had "something to do" - your words - with 9-11.

[Rob Lister]

I don't see any evidence that anyone said that Saddam had "something to do" - your words - with 9-11.

This isn't complicated CFL.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[jimtron]

Does anyone involved in this thread doubt that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush misled us about the war? Does anyone believe that they looked at all the evidence with an open, critical mind and levelled with the American people about it?

It seems extremely clear to me that even if they truly thought they were doing the right thing by invading Iraq, they knowingly misled us regarding threats to the U.S. and connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda.

[CFLarsen]

This isn't complicated CFL.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

You have seen evidence that he did, in fact, link Saddam to 9-11.

LINK.

You agreed to this:

(Cough)

If you could be honest for a moment.

Rummy claims Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda.

Correct?

Nobody is claiming anything to the contrary...

So, what is it you are arguing here? I am missing something. Don't keep repeating your posts - it will not result in any clarification. Merely repeating a point that is not understood does nothing to promote understanding. That is merely pontification based on the belief that you are right.

What are you arguing?

[CFLarsen]

Does anyone involved in this thread doubt that Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush misled us about the war? Does anyone believe that they looked at all the evidence with an open, critical mind and levelled with the American people about it?

It seems extremely clear to me that even if they truly thought they were doing the right thing by invading Iraq, they knowingly misled us regarding threats to the U.S. and connections between Hussein and Al Qaeda.
You won't get a clear answer from Rob Lister, that's for sure.

[Rob Lister]

You have seen evidence that he did, in fact, link Saddam to 9-11.

LINK.

You agreed to this:





So, what is it you are arguing here? I am missing something. Don't keep repeating your posts - it will not result in any clarification. Merely repeating a point that is not understood does nothing to promote understanding. That is merely pontification based on the belief that you are right.

What are you arguing?


I can do nothing but repeat the request that you back-up your assertion with evidence.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

I can do nothing but repeat the request that you back-up your assertion with evidence.

And that is the problem.

You don't respond to stimuli.

You are oblivious to reason.

You are shutting your mind to other explanations.

You repeat the same thing, over and over again, expecting a different result.

Why are you not insane?

I'm serious.

[jimtron]

Rob: Rumsfeld is on record as making the bulletproof evidence claim (http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html).

Perhaps this: "A month later, he admitted saying it" is not true (I'm not sure either way). Who cares? Isn't the gist of the OP true?

[Rob Lister]

And that is the problem.

You don't respond to stimuli.

You are oblivious to reason.

You are shutting your mind to other explanations.

You repeat the same thing, over and over again, expecting a different result.

Why are you not insane?

I'm serious.

Gee, it seems we must be twins. Provide the requested link and I'm out of here.

I can do nothing but repeat the request that you back-up your assertion with evidence.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

Completely impervious to reality...

[Rob Lister]

Completely impervious to reality...

And yet, you have not provided the link

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[jimtron]

In my opinion it doesn't matter if Rumsfeld admitted saying it or not; it's demonstrably true that he did say it.

[Rob Lister]

In my opinion it doesn't matter if Rumsfeld admitted saying it or not; it's demonstrably true that he did say it.

Then demonstrate it.

[CFLarsen]

And yet, you have not provided the link

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

You are demonstrably wrong.

You have several times been presented with evidence that Rumsfeld has said that there is bulletproof evidence of a link between Saddam and 9-11.

The New York Times, and a month later.

It is a fact that this evidence exists.

It is a fact that you ignore this evidence.

You, my friend, have no case. The only thing that is of interest is, why do you do it? Your posting history on this thread clearly indicates that you are insane.

Now, I would like to believe that this is not so. That you are in fact playing a game of some sorts. If the latter is true, please say so. If there is anything behind your inane repetitions of the same, unfounded, refuted claim, please say so.

Why are you doing this? What are you trying to prove?

Repeating your unfounded claim will do nothing except enforce the contention that you are, in fact, insane.

So, what's it going to be?

[Rob Lister]

You are demonstrably wrong.

You have several times been presented with evidence that Rumsfeld has said that there is bulletproof evidence of a link between Saddam and 9-11.

The New York Times, and a month later.

It is a fact that this evidence exists.

It is a fact that you ignore this evidence.

You, my friend, have no case. The only thing that is of interest is, why do you do it? Your posting history on this thread clearly indicates that you are insane.

Now, I would like to believe that this is not so. That you are in fact playing a game of some sorts. If the latter is true, please say so. If there is anything behind your inane repetitions of the same, unfounded, refuted claim, please say so.

Why are you doing this? What are you trying to prove?

Repeating your unfounded claim will do nothing except enforce the contention that you are, in fact, insane.

So, what's it going to be?


Odd that you call me demonstratable wrong for quoting your opening post and asking you to provide a link.

Here, I'll help again.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[clk]

You have several times been presented with evidence that Rumsfeld has said that there is bulletproof evidence of a link between Saddam and 9-11.



Where was this evidence? I missed it. The Times article says that Rumsfeld claimed Saddam had links to Al Qaida, not 9-11.

[CFLarsen]

Odd that you call me demonstratable wrong for quoting your opening post and asking you to provide a link.

Here, I'll help again.

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.


I rest my case.

[CFLarsen]

Where was this evidence? I missed it. The Times article says that Rumsfeld claimed Saddam had links to Al Qaida, not 9-11.
And Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11.

Correct?

[Rob Lister]

I rest my case.

Please don't rest your case before providing the evidence. If you can't provide it...if you were mistaken...just admit it.


(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[clk]

And Al Qaeda is responsible for 9-11.

Correct?

So what? If I know a guy named Bob, and he commits murder, does that link me to the murder? No. So your question is completely irrelevant. In your opening post, you claimed that in the NY Times, Rumsfeld said there was a link between Saddam and 9/11. However, the article says:

Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States.


So the article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you wish to retract your claim?

[CFLarsen]

So what?

I asked you a question. Is Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11, yes or no?

[Rob Lister]

So the article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you wish to retract your claim?

I do not think he will retract the claim but he may well use your argument to change the subject.

[clk]

I asked you a question. Is Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11, yes or no?

This question is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Answer my question: The article you sourced says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you wish to retract your claim?

[jimtron]

Where was this evidence? I missed it. The Times article says that Rumsfeld claimed Saddam had links to Al Qaida, not 9-11.

The point is that Rumsfeld claimed there was a bulletproof link between Hussein and Al Qaida. Since Al Qaida was behind the 9/11 attacks, this was alarming and helped support the argument for war. In my view Rumsfeld knew or should have known that were not significant links between Hussein and Al Qaida.

Does anyone here doubt that the Administration tried to associate Hussein and 9/11 in the minds of Americans, and that this was misleading and dishonest (even though they may or may not have explicitly stated such a thing)?

For me it's not so important whether they technically lied or not (although clearly there were blatant, actual lies). What's relevant is that they clearly (in my view) misled their people about the reality of the situation. They wanted to invade Iraq, and whether that was a good idea or not, they were not honest and forthright about the potential threat of Iraq.

If our government is going to send our 18 year olds overseas to risk their lives, they should be honest about what's going on. This idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. was clearly bogus.

(edited for spelling)

[CFLarsen]

This question is completely and utterly irrelevant.

You can't avoid pertinent questions by proclaiming them irrelevant.

Is Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11, yes or no?

Answer my question: The article you sourced says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you wish to retract your claim?

Rumsfeld claimed that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11. That is a fact.

Deal with it.

[Rob Lister]

You can't avoid pertinent questions by proclaiming them irrelevant.


Nor can you avoid this:

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[CFLarsen]

Nor can you avoid this:

(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

Seek help.

I really mean that.

[clk]

The point is that Rumsfeld claimed there was a bulletproof link between Hussein and Al Qaida. Since Al Qaida was behind the 9/11 attacks, this was alarming and helped support the argument for war. In my view Rumsfeld knew or should have known that were not significant links between Hussein and Al Qaida.

Does anyone here doubt that the Administration tried to associate Hussein and 9/11 in the minds of Americans, and that this was misleading and dishonest (even though they may or may not have explicitly stated such a thing)?

For me it's not so important whether they technically lied or not (although clearly there were blatant, actual lies). What's relevant is that they clearly (in my view) misled there people about the reality of the situation. They wanted to invade Iraq, and whether that was a good idea or not, they were not honest and forthright about the potential threat of Iraq.

If our government is going to send our 18 year olds overseas to risk their lives, they should be honest about what's going on. This idea that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. was clearly bogus.

Oh hell, there's no doubt that they tried to convince Americans that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam. To this day, Bush still uses "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same sentence as often as possible in an attempt to make people think there's a connection. But they are not stupid about it. They never came out and said he was tied to 9/11, despite what Claus thinks. They always said he was tied to Al Qaida. Those are two competely different things.

In fact, I agree with everything you say in your post. I'm just arguing otherwise because:
-It's fun to see Claus try to defend himself when it's clear he made a false claim.
-I feel like playing semantics today.

[clk]

Is Al Qaeda responsible for 9-11, yes or no?


Yup.


Rumsfeld claimed that there was a link between Saddam and 9-11. That is a fact.


Where? Funny you didn't mention the following article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

[Rob Lister]

Seek help.

I really mean that.

And I really, really think YOU can help by providing evidence of YOUR assertion.

Let me help put that in context


(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[jimtron]

Now that I really think this through, I think Rumsfeld was honest and forthright and fair with the American people he serves. I think people have been too hard on him. He knows better than generals about how many troops to send in. He really believed that Hussein and Al Qaida were plotting attacks against the U.S. He was sincerely afraid that Iraq was an imminent threat to my country.

People please: GET OFF HIS BACK!!

It's true.

[Rob Lister]

I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?

[jimtron]

I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?

No, I'm certain I couldn't do the job.

Rob, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job? Do you think he always spoke honestly with the American people? Do you think he was wrong to ignore the military leaders who recommended more troops at the start of the invasion?

[CFLarsen]

Yup.

Where? Funny you didn't mention the following article:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.

[Rob Lister]

No, I'm certain I couldn't do the job.

Rob, do you think Rumsfeld has done a good job? Do you think he always spoke honestly with the American people? Do you think he was wrong to ignore the military leaders who recommended more troops at the start of the invasion?

Yes, maybe, maybe.

[CFLarsen]

I think you are mostly right jimtron, even though I suspect you say it in jest.

Could YOU do the job?
Now you are showing your true colors as a RummyBot: You are using the "The soldiers there donned protective gear. They believed it!" ruse.

Wake up, man. You are being used.

[Rob Lister]

You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.


(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

Provide the link and I'll go away. It's not like I care.

[Rob Lister]

Now you are showing your true colors as a RummyBot: You are using the "The soldiers there donned protective gear. They believed it!" ruse.

Wake up, man. You are being used.

Assumes facts not in evidence...again.

Let's start here:


(Woman) You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.
The National Press Club, September 10, 2003

Clause: According to the New York Times, September he did say it, on September 27th, 2002. A month later, he admitted saying it.

Oops.


Oops indeed, CFL. Please link to Donald admitting he said that.

[jimtron]

You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.

Donald Rumsfeld had a link to Saddam Hussein. Maybe the two collaborated on nasty deeds? It's true. (http://images.google.com/images?q=rumsfeld%20hussein&oe=UTF-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&percentage_served=*:100&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi)

[clk]

You are making the same mistake as Rob Lister. You are equating "link" with "having a hand in", or "having something to do with" 9-11.

That's not the issue here. Did Saddam have a link to 9-11? Yes, he did. Did Saddam have a hand in 9-11? I haven't seen any evidence of this.

But the truth of the matter is, Rumsfeld lied about his own claims about Saddam being linked to 9-11.

Maybe, but then the whole argument becomes a debate around semantics. There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it. They would always say that he was linked to Al Qaida, or they would link the Iraq war with the war on terror. But they never came out and consistently said that he had a link or a hand in 9/11.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe, but then the whole argument becomes a debate around semantics. There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it. They would always say that he was linked to Al Qaida, or they would link the Iraq war with the war on terror. But they never came out and consistently said that he had a link or a hand in 9/11.
No, not "maybe".

It is a fact that Rumsfeld lied.

And that lie was pivotal to the decision to go to war.

Do you dispute this?

[jimtron]

There's no doubt that the administration tried to convince people that there was some association between Saddam and 9/11, but they were not stupid about it.

Yep, they were pretty shrewd and effective in misleading the nation--"catapulting the propaganda" one might say.

[clk]

No, not "maybe".

It is a fact that Rumsfeld lied.

And that lie was pivotal to the decision to go to war.

Do you dispute this?

Rumsfeld has lied before, but what are you claiming he lied about?

[davefoc]

-I feel like playing semantics today.

One of the few intellectually honest statements in this whole stupid dispute between CFL and Rob Lister, et al.

Each side acts like they are holders of absolute knowledge with regard to semantics and that somehow repeating the same logic over and over will convince people that their interpretation of ambiguos language is the only possible correct one.

Meanwhile back on the farm, Jimtron asked: Does anyone here doubt that the Administration tried to associate Hussein and 9/11 in the minds of Americans, and that this was misleading and dishonest (even though they may or may not have explicitly stated such a thing)?

I don't. I think that the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco engaged in a concious, planned effort to mislead people with regard to the evidence for the justification of a preemptive war against Iraq.

The more interesting question to me is why they lied. I suspect now, that the decision had been made to invade Iraq because it was part of a kind of neocon ideology and that there was nothing that Hussein could have done to prevent the invasion exept perhaps resigning. The lying was justified in the minds of Bushco because the war was justified even if what they were lying about wasn't true. I also think the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco radically underestimated the difficulties of a post war Iraq and that part of the reason the lies were justified in their minds was that the Iraq war would be over quickly and all the resulting benefits of a democratic, stable, peaceful Iraq would be so great that nobody would remember the lies used to justify the war.

[CFLarsen]

Rumsfeld has lied before, but what are you claiming he lied about?
Jeebus Christ, read the bloody thread!

[clk]

Jeebus Christ, read the bloody thread!

I have, but most of it is too convoluted and repetitious. You started playing semantics after people pointed out that the article did not say what you claimed it did. Now I have no idea what your position is.

[jimtron]

The more interesting question to me is why they lied. I suspect now, that the decision had been made to invade Iraq because it was part of a kind of neocon ideology and that there was nothing that Hussein could have done to prevent the invasion exept perhaps resigning. The lying was justified in the minds of Bushco because the war was justified even if what they were lying about wasn't true. I also think the evidence is overwhelming that Bushco radically underestimated the difficulties of a post war Iraq and that part of the reason the lies were justified in their minds was that the Iraq war would be over quickly and all the resulting benefits of a democratic, stable, peaceful Iraq would be so great that nobody would remember the lies used to justify the war.

I agree. I'm guessing they lied because they were afraid if they didn't use fear tactics, people wouldn't go for the invasion. Bush claimed he didn't want to nation-build. If people were told the truth, that this was a war of choice that (according to Bush and the neocons) would be advantageous to the U.S. and the rest of the world, but that there were serious risks involved (enormous financial costs, American lives lost, increasing rather than decreasing terrorism, destabilizing the region, etc.) it's likely that Congress and U.S. citizens wouldn't support it. So they scared people by implying 9/11 connections, mushroom clouds, and the like. And the scare tactics worked.

If they had good reason to go to war, why didn't they just put forth that argument in an honest way? Maybe because it was an idea that wouldn't stand up on its own merit.

[Ziggurat]

Where was this evidence? I missed it. The Times article says that Rumsfeld claimed Saddam had links to Al Qaida, not 9-11.

CFLarsen thinks that's the same thing. He can't understand that the claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda (what Rumsfeld claimed) is a DIFFERENT claim than Iraq having ties to 9/11 (what Rumsfeld never said). So you can only understand CF's "argument" if you start from that broken axiom, which is that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda automatically means a connection between Iraq and everything Al Qaeda does. That's absurd, of course, but there you have it.

I've abandoned the thread because it's just become CF defending that axiom without even being able to explain coherently that that's where the breakdown is coming from.

[jimtron]

Rumsfeld has lied before, but what are you claiming he lied about?

Here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/05/06/MNGUUIMJDR1.DTL)Rumsfeld admits saying something that was untrue:

The record shows that in the weeks preceding the war, Rumsfeld flatly claimed to know the whereabouts of Hussein's weapons arsenal. On March 30, 2003 -- 11 days into the war -- Rumsfeld was asked in an ABC News interview if he was surprised that American forces had not yet found any weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," he said, according to an official Pentagon transcript. "The area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

His comments in Atlanta were in line with an attempted revision six months after the war started. On Sept. 10, 2003, Rumsfeld addressed the issue in remarks at the National Press Club. "I said, 'We know they're in that area.' I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment."

Six months before the invasion, on Sept. 19, 2002, Rumsfeld testified about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Rumsfeld said Hussein "has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons ... large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons," according to the committee's transcript.

That theme continued right up to the weeks before the invasion. On Jan. 20, 2003, Rumsfeld told an audience at the Reserve Officers Association that Hussein "has large, unaccounted-for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism and possibly smallpox." (bold added) - San Francisco Chronicle, May 6, 2006

He said "We know where they are," but he really didn't know where they were. The last part of the quote above may or may not be a lie--anyone know if they found the weapons he names?

Cheney said (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html): "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?

[clk]

Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?

They did tell Kay where they were. But Kay found nothing. The weapons inspectors spent 5 months in Iraq before the start of the war, and inspected hundreds of suspected sites. In March 2003, they even called our intelligence 'garbage'.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml

So there was serious doubt even before the war about whether Saddam had WMD.

edit: whoops, sorry. Kay came after the invasion. I mean UN inspectors, not Kay. My mistake

[WildCat]

Why didn't Rumsfeld and Cheney tell David Kay where the weapons were, while Kay was in Iraq with his weapons inspectors immediately proceeding the war?

"They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Knowing what area of the country they are in does not equate to an exact address.

In which case, it really all comes down to whether or not Rumsfeld really thought Iraq possessed WMD's - and that is certainly not something this thread is going to resolve.

[Tricky]

Please link to Donald admitting he said that.
How about a compromise. I will admit that I don't have a link for Donald admitting to those exact words if you will admit that he intentionally misled people into believing there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam.

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue. The issue is that the things he mislead us about lead to the deaths of thousands of people and, in my opinion, harmed the US and the rest of the world greatly. To me, an honorable man would own up to those misleadings. Neither he nor Bush has ever done so, in spite of being heckled by having their own words, or reasonable approximations of them, brought out and used against them. The least they could do is say, "I was wrong". The right thing would be to say, "I intentionally misled you." But of course, that only happens in the movies.

[Evolver]

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue.
No? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)
To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

[Tricky]

Now it is not a crime for politicians to mislead, or even to lie (unless they are under oath) so that's not the issue. No? (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/)To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."
My point was that politicians lie. We all know it. We all expect it. It would be tremendously hard to prove that it was a lie, because regardless of the preponderance of evidence, Bushco could always say that they were simply mistaken, not lying. Now of course, most rational people are going to roll their eyes at that, but proving it in a court of law is a different matter. "Deliberate" is a very difficult thing to prove.

And for my part, I don't even care if Rumsfeld and the other "misled" people are punished for doing what they mistakenly believed was right. I just want those incompetents out of my government. I realize that a mother of a dead soldier might disagree with me and I would understand if they tried to get revenge. I don't think it would do any good overall.

The thing that gets to me is that Bushco and his apologists still seem to be arguing that there was a good reason for going to war, even if we cooked the evidence and even if the results of the war have been almost unarguably damaging to the US. I believe that to suggest that this war was wise is a position that is untenable. I want to stop these "honest mistakes" and get back to being a country that people trust. Bush has done more to ruin the reputation of the country I love than any person since... well... Reagan.

[CFLarsen]

Knowing what area of the country they are in does not equate to an exact address.

Somebody must have seen them somewhere. Otherwise, the CIA would be lying.

....Right?

I have, but most of it is too convoluted and repetitious. You started playing semantics after people pointed out that the article did not say what you claimed it did. Now I have no idea what your position is.
Post #184.

It only took you less than an hour to forget what I posted.

CFLarsen thinks that's the same thing. He can't understand that the claim that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda (what Rumsfeld claimed) is a DIFFERENT claim than Iraq having ties to 9/11 (what Rumsfeld never said). So you can only understand CF's "argument" if you start from that broken axiom, which is that any connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda automatically means a connection between Iraq and everything Al Qaeda does. That's absurd, of course, but there you have it.

I've abandoned the thread because it's just become CF defending that axiom without even being able to explain coherently that that's where the breakdown is coming from.

Al Qaeda was not behind 9-11?

Can you tell me who the war on terror is fought against, if not Al Qaeda? (I've asked this quite a number of times to people who defend Rumsfeld, but there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of answering it. Hmmm.....)

[Polaris]

But...

Um...

No, forget it, I'm not gonna punch this tar baby.

[President Bush]

Can you tell me who the war on terror is fought against, if not Al Qaeda?
That guy directly behind you. Right where you are sitting now. Don't turn around. Hold perfectly still. Don't say a word. Just do what we say.

[HarryKeogh]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.

But if we want to play games we can, by Claus' logic, say Claus has links to Uri Geller.

[Tricky]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.
I'll gladly accept this compromise. I think though that it has been shown that Rumsfeld knew that he was indirectly implying that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11, or at the very least, he knew that many people had that impression, and he did absolutely nothing to dispell it, even though he knew it was not supported by evidence. You might call it dissembling more than outright lying.

[WildCat]

Somebody must have seen them somewhere. Otherwise, the CIA would be lying.

....Right?
No, it was probably an educated guess. If there were WMD's in Iraq it would only make sense that they were in this area, the "Sunni Triangle" as this is where the Hussein regimes base of support was and where his most trusted people were.

I wouldn't rule out that Rumsfelds statement was also aimed at making the Iraqi's think we knew where they were, in order to get them to move them and exposing where they actually were.

[CFLarsen]

woman's claim as to what Rumsfeld said: You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

what he actually said: Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that American intelligence had "bulletproof" evidence of links between Al Qaeda and the government of President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.

I think Rumsfeld is a prick of the highest order but if he didn't say it he didn't say it. The woman was trying to put words in his mouth but he wasn't falling for it. This is an open and shut case of someone trying to get someone else to accept blame for something they never said. We shouldn't have to play semantic games to make this woman's statement seem honest and correct.

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time. You think that Saddam Hussein's government did anything without an explicit order from Saddam himself?

But if we want to play games we can, by Claus' logic, say Claus has links to Uri Geller.

How so?

No, it was probably an educated guess. If there were WMD's in Iraq it would only make sense that they were in this area, the "Sunni Triangle" as this is where the Hussein regimes base of support was and where his most trusted people were.

I wouldn't rule out that Rumsfelds statement was also aimed at making the Iraqi's think we knew where they were, in order to get them to move them and exposing where they actually were.

The point is not where they were, but that they were somewhere. They existed, and he knew where they were. He was very clear about that.

[clk]

Post #184.

It only took you less than an hour to forget what I posted.


Whatever. You were still wrong in your original post, and have yet to admit it. The NY Times article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you agree or not?

[Polaris]

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time. You think that Saddam Hussein's government did anything without an explicit order from Saddam himself?

Nothing naive about it at all - it's the clearest example so far of what they've been trying to say. Did they use 9/11 to bolster emotional support for Iraq? You bet. But Rumsfeld never said specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. That's been proven in this thread. Al-Qaida is more than just 9/11 - specifically the line between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein (other than the fact that Hussein ppenly celebrated 9/11) is that he harbored al-Zarqawi, because, as you say, his government did nothing without his say-so. Zarqawi didn't arrive there until after 9/11 - he was wounded in Afghanistan, fighting American forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, which began in October, 2001.

"After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again travelled to Afghanistan and was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. Zarqawi supposedly traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against Kurdish-nationalist forces in the region. [8] He reportedly became a leader in the group, although his leadership role has not been established.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

[HarryKeogh]

That has to be the single most naive thing I have heard in a very long time.

C'mon, more naive than thinking Darat walks on drumsticks?

How so?

You've had interchanges with Randi/JREF.

Randi/JREF has had interchanges with Geller.

There is a "link" between you and Uri Geller. Remember, "link" not meaning "having a hand in" or anything like that (as you mentioned in post #184) but just a link. Sort of like the link between Saddam, Al Qaida, and 9/11.

It's Claus Logic 101.

[CFLarsen]

Whatever. You were still wrong in your original post, and have yet to admit it. The NY Times article says exactly the opposite of what you claimed it said. Do you agree or not?

No, I don't agree. That would require of me that I closed my eyes to reality.

Nothing naive about it at all - it's the clearest example so far of what they've been trying to say. Did they use 9/11 to bolster emotional support for Iraq? You bet. But Rumsfeld never said specifically that Saddam was behind 9/11. That's been proven in this thread.

Who has said that Rumsfeld specifically said that Saddam was behind 9/11? Please show me where.

Al-Qaida is more than just 9/11 - specifically the line between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein (other than the fact that Hussein ppenly celebrated 9/11) is that he harbored al-Zarqawi, because, as you say, his government did nothing without his say-so. Zarqawi didn't arrive there until after 9/11 - he was wounded in Afghanistan, fighting American forces in Operation Enduring Freedom, which began in October, 2001.

There you have it: Not only "link", but "support".

You've had interchanges with Randi/JREF.

Randi/JREF has had interchanges with Geller.

There is a "link" between you and Uri Geller. Remember, "link" not meaning "having a hand in" or anything like that (as you mentioned in post #184) but just a link. Sort of like the link between Saddam, Al Qaida, and 9/11.

It's Claus Logic 101.

Now you are plain dishonest. "Link" is not the same as "interchange". Saddam supported Al Qaeda - or so the story goes.

I don't support Geller, and neither does JREF.

HarryKeogh Logic 101 says that Randi supports Geller. Way to go.

[HarryKeogh]

Now you are plain dishonest. "Link" is not the same as "interchange". Saddam supported Al Qaeda - or so the story goes.

I don't support Geller, and neither does JREF.

HarryKeogh Logic 101 says that Randi supports Geller. Way to go.

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!

[aerocontrols]

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!


Words mean whatever Claus wants them to mean.

Did you know, for instance, that Socialist countries aren't free?

[CFLarsen]

link does not just equal support

link is a connecting element (according to dictionary.com). Your interchange is that.

You are linked to Uri Geller. Hey, guess what? So am I! Whee!!!

Oh, come on! You think Rumsfeld didn't mean support? You are more naive than I thought. Or, possibly, an apologist of a disturbing magnitude.

But, OK. Let's go with that for a moment: Rumsfeld argues that we should invade Iraq, because Al Qaeda is linked to Saddam the same way Randi is linked to Geller.

Do you think that is a valid reason to invade Iraq?

[clk]

No, I don't agree. That would require of me that I closed my eyes to reality.



Let's see...in your OP, you said that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11, according to the Sept. 27th issue of the NYT. Yet, in that issue of the NYT, the paper states:


Administration officials say there is still no evidence to link Mr. Hussein directly to the attacks on Sept. 11 in the United States.


That quote is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. What part of this argument do you not understand? I even provided you with a link with Rumsfeld saying exactly the opposite of what you claimed he said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.


Yet you continue to claim that Rumsfeld stated that there was a link. Now either provide evidence that he directly linked Saddam to 9/11, or shut up. And don't start playing semantical games.

[HarryKeogh]

Oh, come on! You think Rumsfeld didn't mean support? You are more naive than I thought. Or, possibly, an apologist of a disturbing magnitude.

But, OK. Let's go with that for a moment: Rumsfeld argues that we should invade Iraq, because Al Qaeda is linked to Saddam the same way Randi is linked to Geller.

Do you think that is a valid reason to invade Iraq?

okay, let's see if we can do this without being rude or irritating. We're just two skeptics speaking to each other trying to get at the truth.

As other people have said, it seems very likely the Bush administration would have liked us to believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 but they made a point of not saying it directly.

My only fault with this entire thread is that woman saying he said one thing when he did not come out and say it. It can be spun anyway one wants but did he say he had bulletproof evidence of a link between Sadaam and 9/11? No, he didn't. If she was going to quote the "bullet-proof evidence" portion correctly why didn't she correctly quote the party that Rumsfeld said he had the evidence against?

There are plenty of things Rumsfeld has been wrong about. Why are you wasting time attacking him for the time he was right?

And to answer your question: Of course not.

[CFLarsen]

okay, let's see if we can do this without being rude or irritating. We're just two skeptics speaking to each other trying to get at the truth.

As other people have said, it seems very likely the Bush administration would have liked us to believe that Saddam had a hand in 9/11 but they made a point of not saying it directly.

My only fault with this entire thread is that woman saying he said one thing when he did not come out and say it. It can be spun anyway one wants but did he say he had bulletproof evidence of a link between Sadaam and 9/11? No, he didn't.

(cough)

Rumsfeld: There's one other thing I forgot to do, and that is to go to New York Times editorial comment, which said something about me using the word "bulletproof." And it's true, I did. What happened was, as I recall, I think I was here on probably the 26th of September, I think I was told, and in a press briefing I was asked about the linkage between al Qaeda and Iraq. And I took a piece of paper -- this one, as fate would have it -- which I had gotten from the Central Intelligence Agency -- and asked them -- which I'd asked them for -- and I believe I said that, that a number of us had said, "Give us the definitive word." And so I read off of it and said it was from the intelligence agency, I believe.
United States Dept. of Defense (http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2002/t10242002_t1024sd.html)

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.

If she was going to quote the "bullet-proof evidence" portion correctly why didn't she correctly quote the party that Rumsfeld said he had the evidence against?

There are plenty of things Rumsfeld has been wrong about. Why are you wasting time attacking him for the time he was right?

Well, he wasn't right.

And to answer your question: Of course not.

In the face of Rumsfeld's own admission, do you admit that you were wrong? Time to show that you are a skeptic.

[clk]

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.



A link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not the same as a link between Iraq and 9/11
Jesus Christ, why is that so hard for you to understand? The woman's claim was flat-out wrong. It's that simple.

[CFLarsen]

Let's see...in your OP, you said that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11, according to the Sept. 27th issue of the NYT. Yet, in that issue of the NYT, the paper states:

That quote is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. What part of this argument do you not understand? I even provided you with a link with Rumsfeld saying exactly the opposite of what you claimed he said:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-09-16-rumsfeld-iraq-911_x.htm

No, no, no. "Administration officials". Not Rumsfeld.

Yet you continue to claim that Rumsfeld stated that there was a link. Now either provide evidence that he directly linked Saddam to 9/11, or shut up. And don't start playing semantical games.

I'm not playing semantical games. I refer you to post #221.

Are you going to ignore the evidence?

[CFLarsen]

A link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is not the same as a link between Iraq and 9/11
Jesus Christ, why is that so hard for you to understand? The woman's claim was flat-out wrong. It's that simple.

Rumsfeld has admitted to claiming bulletproof evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is a fact.

Is Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration, for that matter) blaming Al Qaeda for 9/11? Yes or no.

[clk]

No, no, no. "Administration officials". Not Rumsfeld.


Guess what? Rumsfeld is an administration official.


I'm not playing semantical games. I refer you to post #221.

Are you going to ignore the evidence?

When the woman said:

You said about a year ago, that there was bullet-proof evidence, that Saddam Hu...of links between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attacks. When will the American public see that sort of evidence?

She was wrong. Do you agree? If not, then show exactly where in the article that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11. And don't come back with his quote linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, because it's not the same thing.

When Rumsfeld said:

Donald Rumsfeld: I did not say that. And whoever said I said it, is wrong.


He was right. Do you agree?

[clk]

Rumsfeld has admitted to claiming bulletproof evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11.

That is a fact.


OK, then show us the quote where he links Iraq and 9/11. Why have you failed to do this for the last 5 pages?


Is Rumsfeld (and the Bush Administration, for that matter) blaming Al Qaeda for 9/11? Yes or no.

Yeah, but so what? This is completely irrelevant.

[HarryKeogh]

He did say it, OK? He even admitted to it.

A bulletproof link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

You can ignore it all you like. But he did say it.

Who here is denying he said that? I myself said he said that in an earlier post in this thread.

OK, honestly Claus...are you playing around? Are you just doing this for kicks to see how many people you could annoy?

We're denying he said a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11 which was the point of the second part of the opening post.

Where did he say there was a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11?

[clk]

Who here is denying he said that?


Nobody is denying it, and Claus knows damn well that he's wrong. He just doesn't have the character to admit it.

[CFLarsen]

Guess what? Rumsfeld is an administration official.

Guess what? He is not the one being quoted!

When the woman said:

She was wrong. Do you agree? If not, then show exactly where in the article that Rumsfeld linked Saddam to 9/11. And don't come back with his quote linking Saddam to Al Qaeda, because it's not the same thing.

When Rumsfeld said:

He was right. Do you agree?

No, I don't agree. The evidence is there. Face it.

[CFLarsen]

Where did he say there was a bulletproof link between Sadaam and 9/11?

You do realize that you are saying that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11?

[Kopji]

Panel Debates Whether Saddam Has the Weapons
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=3391

...Robert Scheer argued that the Bush administration's ground for the proposed invasion of Iraq have continually shifted. "We had September 11, we went after bin Laden. After September 11 Iraq becomes a big issue. There are two reasons that could have been valid: one was if Iraq was connected to these attacks. Rumsfield said there was bullet-proof evidence of such a connection. It has never been presented. Then there is the claim that there were weapons of mass destruction. They have been unable to find any. The UN inspectors' report says they have found no evidence of mobile or underground facilities. The report from the atomic energy group said that the documents trying to prove that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons were faked. So no evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction has been submitted. They can't make the case on terror, can't make the case on weapons of mass destruction. That leaves regime change. If that is what they wanted to do from the beginning, that is what they should have said."...

..."We are being jacked around. This is very dangerous for a democratic society. Democracy is a system in which the president talks to god but thinks he can lie to the American people."


This discussion was posted March 3, 2003, before the invasion on March 20. All these questions were asked BEFORE the war and we went in anyway, eyes open. The discussion is almost prophetic.

Rumsfeld did publicly use the phrase "bulletproof evidence" and I remember it at least once. But he goes on later to soften it, knowing that nobody is going to read past paragraph one. "Most of us are all too happily led around by the nose. The war is as much the people's fault as elected leaders like Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Blair.


We cannot remove our responsibility by saying we were lied to. We lapped it up and still do.


Rumsfeld Says U.S. Has 'Bulletproof' Evidence of Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/1761.html

A little more recent news. "JACKED AROUND" - Great phrase.

biological laboratories

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

...The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

[CFLarsen]

Let's see if evidence will make people change their minds.

[davefoc]

If a gang was running a drug ring in a town out of a rented house, would it be reasonable to say that there was a link between the landlord and the gang if the landlord knew the nature of the gang but the landlord neither controlled the gang nor knew of the specifics of their day to day operation?

Based on my understanding of the use of the word "link" this would a perfectly reasonable representation of the situation.

[clk]

Guess what? He is not the one being quoted!



No, I don't agree. The evidence is there. Face it.

At this point, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dishonest. Oh well, it's certainly not the first time. All you have to do is provide a quote from Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11. You have failed to do so over the last five pages. It has been very, very clearly proven that the woman's claim was wrong, and yet you continue to lie and claim otherwise. Why?

[CFLarsen]

At this point, I can only conclude that you are being deliberately dishonest. Oh well, it's certainly not the first time. All you have to do is provide a quote from Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11. You have failed to do so over the last five pages. It has been very, very clearly proven that the woman's claim was wrong, and yet you continue to lie and claim otherwise. Why?

Do you admit that it wasn't Rumsfeld being quoted?

Have you read post #231?

[clk]

Do you admit that it wasn't Rumsfeld being quoted?


No. Administration officials speak for the entire administration, including Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld had claimed a link to 9/11, then why didn't the NY Times mention it at all? It doesn't add up.


Have you read post #231?


Yeah, and the author of that page is likely making the same mistake as you, equating a link to Al Qaeda as a link to 9/11. If Rumsfeld said there was a link to 9/11, then where is the quote? Why isn't it displayed prominently on the web pages of hundreds of liberal sites? Because he never said it. He said exactly the opposite.
http://www.chinadaily.net/en/doc/2003-09/17/content_264869.htm

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States.

At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked about a poll that indicated nearly 70 percent of respondents believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.

"I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that," Rumsfeld said.

He added: "We know he was giving $25,000 a family for anyone who would go out and kill innocent men, women and children. And we know of various other activities. But on that specific one, no, not to my knowledge."

Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

"What we have said," she added, "is that this is someone who supported terrorists, helped to train them, but most importantly that this is someone who, with his animus toward the United States, with his penchant for and capability to gain weapons of mass destruction, and his obvious willingness to use them, was a threat in this region that we were not prepared to tolerate."


Now, where is the quote in which Rumsfeld directly links Saddam to 9/11?

[CFLarsen]

No. Administration officials speak for the entire administration, including Rumsfeld.

I didn't ask if administration officials speak for the entire administration. I asked if it was Rumsfeld being quoted.

Was it Rumsfeld? Or was it someone else?

If Rumsfeld had claimed a link to 9/11, then why didn't the NY Times mention it at all? It doesn't add up.

It doesn't matter if it adds up. We are not dealing with people who seek rationality. The only thing that matter is: Did Rumsfeld say it? Yes, he did.

Yeah, and the author of that page is likely making the same mistake as you, equating a link to Al Qaeda as a link to 9/11. If Rumsfeld said there was a link to 9/11, then where is the quote? Why isn't it displayed prominently on the web pages of hundreds of liberal sites? Because he never said it. He said exactly the opposite.
http://www.chinadaily.net/en/doc/2003-09/17/content_264869.htm

Now, where is the quote in which Rumsfeld directly links Saddam to 9/11?

Look, if you want to claim that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11, fine with me. But I'm following you into RummyWorld.

He said it. Deal with it.

[clk]

Claus,
Why do you think that when a Google search is performed on the words "Rumsfeld Saddam 9/11", the only links and quotes that come up are of him saying that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11? Is it because he never said there was a link, and that the only people who think otherwise are the ones too stupid to understand that Saddam-AQ is different from Saddam-9/11?
Or do you think it is some massive conspiracy between Bush, Google, and the rest of the internet to suppress a quote by him?


No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaida. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

=====================================

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."

[clk]

Look, if you want to claim that Rumsfeld claims Al Qaeda is not responsible for 9/11, fine with me.


Strawman. Where did I claim this?



He said it.


Where is the quote?

All you have to do is provide a single quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11, and I will immediately concede my point. Why are you unable to perform the most simple of tasks?

[CFLarsen]

Claus,
Why do you think that when a Google search is performed on the words "Rumsfeld Saddam 9/11", the only links and quotes that come up are of him saying that there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11? Is it because he never said there was a link, and that the only people who think otherwise are the ones too stupid to understand that Saddam-AQ is different from Saddam-9/11? Or do you think it is some massive conspiracy between Bush, Google, and the rest of the internet to suppress a quote by him?

That Google search yields 5,890,000 hits. Have you read through them all?

Strawman. Where did I claim this?

It follows: If you don't think a link to AQ is a link to 9/11, then you are living in RummyWorld. Why else did the US invade Afghanistan?

All you have to do is provide a single quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam and 9/11, and I will immediately concede my point. Why are you unable to perform the most simple of tasks?

Look, you are fighting a lost battle here. The Bush administration - which Rumsfeld is a vital part of - made Saddam's connections to Al Qaeda - responsible for 9/11 - a vital part of the reasoning behind the attack on Iraq.

Was it Rumsfeld being quoted? Or was it someone else?

[clk]

That Google search yields 5,890,000 hits. Have you read through them all?


Do you really think it's possible for Rumsfeld (who is one of the most well documented people on the planet) to claim a link between Saddam and 9/11 without a single reporter, journalist, political pundit, or blogger documenting the quote or asking Rummy for evidence of such a link to 9/11?


It follows: If you don't think a link to AQ is a link to 9/11, then you are living in RummyWorld. Why else did the US invade Afghanistan?


No, it doesn't follow. It is piss poor logic. It is damn well possible to claim that Saddam had ties to AQ without saying that Saddam was tied to 9/11. In fact, that's exactly what the administration did. They even claimed that there was no evidence that he was tied to 9/11. But you apparently fail to understand that, or purposefully ignore it.


Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that he had no reason to believe that Iraq's Saddam Hussein had a hand in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S.

No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he [Saddam] has been involved with al-Qaida. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."



Was it Rumsfeld being quoted? Or was it someone else?

Doesn't matter. They were speaking for the administration, including Rumsfeld.

So let's recap:
Woman says that Rumsfeld claimed in NYT that Saddam had link to 9/11.
Woman was wrong.
Rumsfeld points out woman was wrong.
Claus thinks woman was right, and says Rumsfeld lied.
Claus provides no evidence of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11.
No website provides a documented quote of Rumsfeld making that claim, only quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what Claus claimed he said.
Claus continues to be dishonest, claiming that "[Rumsfeld] said it", but refusing to provide a quote of him saying it.
Claus makes a logical fallacy equating Saddam-AQ to Saddam-9/11.

[CFLarsen]

Do you really think it's possible for Rumsfeld (who is one of the most well documented people on the planet) to claim a link between Saddam and 9/11 without a single reporter, journalist, political pundit, or blogger documenting the quote or asking Rummy for evidence of such a link to 9/11?

I asked you a question: Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?

Doesn't matter. They were speaking for the administration, including Rumsfeld.

Sure it matters. You can't attribute a quote to someone, if someone else made the statement you are quoting from.

Woman says that Rumsfeld claimed in NYT that Saddam had link to 9/11.
Woman was wrong.

No, she was not.

Rumsfeld points out woman was wrong.
Claus thinks woman was right, and says Rumsfeld lied.
Claus provides no evidence of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11.
No website provides a documented quote of Rumsfeld making that claim, only quotes of him saying the exact opposite of what Claus claimed he said.
Claus continues to be dishonest, claiming that "[Rumsfeld] said it", but refusing to provide a quote of him saying it.
Claus makes a logical fallacy equating Saddam-AQ to Saddam-9/11.

No, no, no. I am not the one linking Saddam to 9/11. I am saying - with evidence - that Rummy linked Saddam to 9/11.

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

[clk]

I asked you a question: Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?



Sure it matters. You can't attribute a quote to someone, if someone else made the statement you are quoting from.



No, she was not.



No, no, no. I am not the one linking Saddam to 9/11. I am saying - with evidence - that Rummy linked Saddam to 9/11.

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?


Where is the quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11?

[CFLarsen]

Where is the quote of Rumsfeld linking Saddam to 9/11?
Already addressed.

Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?

Why did the US invade Afghanistan?

Do you understand that you cannot focus on quotes, and then attribute a quote to Rumsfeld he didn't make?

[Mycroft]

Next, it will be argued that Osama bin Laden is not really Al Qaeda.... :rolleyes:

I don't see anyone who claimed that, nor did I see anyone who claimed Rumsfield said there is no link between Al Qaeda and 9/11.

[clk]

Already addressed.


Where did you provide the quote? All you provided was a non sequitur argument.


Have you read through 5,890,000 hits? Yes or no?


I read through the relevant ones, yes.


Why did the US invade Afghanistan?


Irrelevant. Afghanistan has nothing to do with the argument.


Do you understand that you cannot focus on quotes, and then attribute a quote to Rumsfeld he didn't make?


How do you know he was not one of the officials to make the claim? He has repeatedly said that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You refuse to believe this. Am I making these quotes up out of thin air?


Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," Rumsfeld added.


Rumsfeld has been repeatedly quoted as saying something that is exactly the opposite of what you claim he said. Yes or no?

[Polaris]

The problem I see here is a little bit beyond semantics. My knowledge of logical jargon is faulty, so bear with me here...

CFLarsen claims, by agreeing with the individual who questions Rumsfeld in the video-cum-transcript, that Rumsfeld said there was "bullet-proof evidence" of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Others ask for a link - but the only links I've seen of Rumsfeld admitting anything are of a bullet-proof link between Iraq and al-Qaida. CFLarsen makes the leap (understandable due to the guilt by association and pandering to the American people's emotions following 9/11) that a link between Saddam and al-Qaida = a link between Saddam and 9/11. I haven't seen a quote yet where Rumsfeld says the latter. I've seen him deny it however, in the quotes above. I didn't hear him say it (or anyone else in the Administration for that matter say it) before the opening of hostilities in Iraq. The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

[clk]

The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

Bingo, that was a good explanation. Too bad Claus is unwilling to acknowledge it. I don't know why he's arguing this point when it's extremely clear that he is wrong. Rumsfeld has misled people about a lot of other things, and he's lied before too. But Claus is not too bright, and is instead focusing his energies on arguing a point in which Rumsfeld is right, for once.

[CFLarsen]

Where did you provide the quote? All you provided was a non sequitur argument.

If that's what you want to call it.

I read through the relevant ones, yes.

How did you determine relevancy?

Irrelevant. Afghanistan has nothing to do with the argument.

It has everything to do with the argument. I'll help you, all you have to do is say Yes or No. The US invaded Afghanistan because that was where Al Qaeda was hiding, after killing almost 3,000 people in the September 11th attacks.

Yes or no?

How do you know he was not one of the officials to make the claim? He has repeatedly said that there is no link between Saddam and 9/11. You refuse to believe this. Am I making these quotes up out of thin air?

How do I know? Because when the Secretary of Defense makes a statement, he is attributed that statement. It carries a hell of a lot more credibility and power, if the Secretary of Defense says something, instead of some administration officials.

Rumsfeld has been repeatedly quoted as saying something that is exactly the opposite of what you claim he said. Yes or no?

Whoa...Rumsfeld has repeatedly flipflopped on this, trying to worm his way out of his previous statements. What he says today does not negate what he said earlier.

The problem I see here is a little bit beyond semantics. My knowledge of logical jargon is faulty, so bear with me here...

CFLarsen claims, by agreeing with the individual who questions Rumsfeld in the video-cum-transcript, that Rumsfeld said there was "bullet-proof evidence" of a link between Iraq and 9/11. Others ask for a link - but the only links I've seen of Rumsfeld admitting anything are of a bullet-proof link between Iraq and al-Qaida. CFLarsen makes the leap (understandable due to the guilt by association and pandering to the American people's emotions following 9/11) that a link between Saddam and al-Qaida = a link between Saddam and 9/11. I haven't seen a quote yet where Rumsfeld says the latter. I've seen him deny it however, in the quotes above. I didn't hear him say it (or anyone else in the Administration for that matter say it) before the opening of hostilities in Iraq. The link between al-Qaida and Saddam is regarding al-Zarqawi, who was treated in a hospital run by Uday Hussein after being wounded by American aerial bombardment in Afghanistan - a war which was the result of 9/11. By its very nature that link rules out the link between Saddam and 9/11.

The issue is not whether or not there is a link between Saddam and 9/11. I'm not arguing there is. The issue is whether Rumsfeld claimed there was. He did claim this. That's a major reason why we are at war right now.

[clk]

How do I know? Because when the Secretary of Defense makes a statement, he is attributed that statement. It carries a hell of a lot more credibility and power, if the Secretary of Defense says something, instead of some administration officials.


What difference does it make whether he said it in that specific article or not? He has repeatedly said that there was no link. If you were to show him that article when it came out and ask him if he agreed with the officals' views, he would have likely said: "I agree that there is no evidence linking Saddam and 9/11".


Whoa...Rumsfeld has repeatedly flipflopped on this, trying to worm his way out of his previous statements.


No he hasn't. Give me one example.


What he says today does not negate what he said earlier.


You're right. He's consistently said that there was no link between Iraq and 9/11, so there is no negation.



The issue is whether Rumsfeld claimed there was. He did claim this.

Where the hell did he claim this?

You keep claiming that he said it, but you have provided zero evidence over the last 7 pages. Now either provide the quote, or shut up.