Donald Rumsfeld: Professional Liar

[TC]

EXAMPLE #1
March 2004 comments by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on CBS's "Face the Nation," joined by Tom Friedman of the New York Times:

RUMSFELD: "Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase 'IMMEDIATE THREAT.' I DIDN'T. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened..."

FRIEDMAN, RESPONDING WITH A 9/19/02 QUOTE BY RUMSFELD: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more IMMEDIATE THREAT to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Also: "This is about imminent threat," White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03.
"The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency," George Bush, 10/2/02.
http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=204675

EXAMPLE #2
At a May 14, 2003 hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, Rumsfeld said: "I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons."

**** Cheney, 3-16-03: "And we believe he [Hussein]has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/cheneymeetthepress.htm
http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2003-07-01.html#20030701539308524716

EXAMPLE #3
On 6-25-03, Rumsfeld stated that "Before the war, there was no debate about whether Iraq had unconventional weapons."

(This is insulting enough to not even warrant a reply.) http://www.harpers.org/DonaldRumsfeld.html

EXAMPLE #4
Question to Rumsfeld posed by Senator Mark Pryor at a Senate Armed Services hearing, July 10, 2003: "Secretary Rumsfeld, when did you know that the reports about [Iraq seeking] uranium coming out of Africa were bogus?"

RUMSFELD: "Oh, WITHIN RECENT DAYS, since the information started becoming available."

FACT: The International Atomic Energy Agency had reported almost a half-year earlier that "These [Iraqi uranium] documents...are in fact not authentic." The IAEA's announcment had been reported in the Washington Post and nationwide. (Note that the "recent days" spin would forgive Bush for including the uranium claims in his State of the Union address that Spring.)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2085434/

EXAMPLE #5
On March 30, 2003 Rumsfeld said, referring to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, "We know where they are."

When asked by Tammy Lytle of the National Press Club about that comment on Sept. 10, 2003, including why no WMDs had been found, Rumsfeld responded, "When you quote me, as opposed to somebody else, I do remember the context. And in that instance, we had been in the country for about 15 seconds; SOMETIMES I OVERSTATE FOR EMPHASIS."

I think Rumsfeld misspoke, and really meant "...sometimes I LIE for emphasis."

[ March 22, 2004, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: TC ]

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by TC:
EXAMPLE #1....

---

Here are some more examples for you, TC. More liars?


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


Keith.

 

[needtoknow]

Keith, TC was showing Rumsfeld in an out and out lie, not an application of intelligence information/disinformation/misinformation as your quotes show. There is no dispute about Saddams past. It was about his present (imminent) threat.
Information coming in now shows the Bush Administration misusing/abusing/creating disinformation about Iraq and 911 and WMD and international terrorism because they had already decided to invade prior to 911. An interview on 60 Minutes last night with Richard Clark former Counterterrorist advisor to Reagan, Bush1, Clinton and Bush2 said Bush and his Administration did not respond to his urgings (high alert status)about pending terrorist threats to the US as the Clinton Administration had done. After 911 Bush wanted a focus on Iraq not Afghanistan and so the case started to be built for a predetermined intent. From what I've seen so far from various reports it appears the Bush Administration wanted a terrorist attack to occur so as to set the stage for an invasion of Iraq. At this point I don't think they figured it was going to be as big or as close as 911, but I don't think they really cared. They needed and wanted an incident.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Keith, TC was showing Rumsfeld in an out and out lie, not an application of intelligence information/disinformation/misinformation as your quotes show.

---

You can argue from now till doomsday, which might not be far away if Al Qaeda gets nukes, about what defines "imminent threat" and why EVERYONE that saw the intelligence data believed that Saddam still had WMD's, which is still unproven one way or the other.

JF Kerry had access to the intelligence data, or was talking out of his rear end? Note the date of the quote, well after resolution 1441 passed:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


For those of you that only read one side, or only believe one side:

Condoleezza Rice, Monday, March 22, 2004

I am all for BALANCED debate, with less Bush hatred and more of a concern for winning the war on terrorism. This isn't just a war with Iraq, it is a war of survival for us infidels. It is unreal that we still can't get concensus to close down our borders and keep illegals OUT. Parsing every word every spoken by Rumsfeld, with the sole purpose of scoring political points, doesn't impress me at all. TC is a one trick pony.

Keith.

 

[Asinine]

I love it... when the integrity of Bush or his coterie comes into question--which it all too frequently does, the best defense is the "Clinton got a hummer" defense.

Yup. As soon as another Bush bungle comes to light, point out Clinton's shortcomings. Closed-door contract awards to unqualified corporations like WorldCom? Clinton messed with an intern! Claims about WMD exagerated? Stains on the blue dress! Halliburton gouging U.S. taxpayers? Clinton! Clinton!

If Clinton had killed kittens on his spare time, how does that make the lies we are being fed now any better? Answer: It doesn't. That's called moral relativism. And personally, I'd rather have a president who messes with an ugly intern, than one who sends our service men & women to die for a political agenda.

 

[needtoknow]

Keith, David Kay, Bush's own guy, says WMD is a fantasy and Bush should admit it and move on.
Pakistan, which we know has nuclear weapons, is more a potential threat if extreme Islamists get control. That's one reason we should have focused on Afghanistan not Iraq. After all 911 was linked to Afghanistan not Iraq.
The war in Iraq is separate from the war on terrorism. We could be fighting a much better war on terror if Iraq did not divert attention and resources. We would also have more world support and less reason for the recruitment of Islamic Terrorists. Richard Clark (counterintellegence, Reagan, Clinton, Bush1, Bush2)last night on 60 minutes thinks Bush did more harm to the war on terror with his misguided war on Iraq.
If Condolleezza is concerned about Bush hating maybe she should examine the reasons and advise Bush to start bringing people together (very Presidential) instead of finding ways to divide.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
If Condolleezza is concerned about Bush hating maybe she should examine the reasons and advise Bush to start bringing people together (very Presidential) instead of finding ways to divide.

---

You could say we tried the "bringing people together" thing for all 8 years of Clinton. Arafat in year 2000 was offered a Palestinian state, the Temple Mount, Gaza, almost the whole West Bank, and half of Jerusalem. Why settle for just that when the enemy is soft headed?

By a strange coincidence, Al Qaeda gained massive strength and support during those same 8 years. Who would have thought that the terrorists would gain strength when we didn't confront them? That sure came as a shock - NOT!

Appeasement has a miserable track record. There is a hard core out there that will kill us, and don't want "bringing together". I would rather be the hunter than the hunted, it is no more complicated than that. It's great to have ideals, but not much use if you have a bullseye target on your back.

Keith.

 

[MolaKule]

Like I said fellas, it's an election year.

Makes me wonder though, how much did Viacom and other left-winging groups give O'Neil and Clark to write inuendos, half-truth's, etc.

BTW, some insiders had said for a long time (last year) that Bush's cabinet was infiltrated by some moderates (interpret - left-wingers who pretend they are in the middle) who were giving Bush some bad information and advice.

Hmmm. Were they found out and told to leave?

It's interesting (my observation) that O'Neil and Clark are supposed to be reporting what went on inside the Whitehouse regarding theses security decisions, but weeks later start retracting statements and backpeddling saying, "The writer etc " misinterpreted my comments.

And further, no one questions these so-called insiders but assumes their word is truthful, whereas Bush becomes the lier.

Na, no media bias whatsoever.

 

[labman]

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Keith, David Kay, Bush's own guy, says WMD is a fantasy snip....

---

One more lying distortion as I have come to expect from you. You may as well quit, your credibility is zilch, zero, nada here. Kay never even flatly said there were no WMD, let alone suggested they were a fantasy. You need to take your lies elsewhere. Too many people here know the facts.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Keith, David Kay, Bush's own guy, says WMD is a fantasy snip....

---

One more lying distortion as I have come to expect from you. You may as well quit, your credibility is zilch, zero, nada here. Kay never even flatly said there were no WMD, let alone suggested they were a fantasy. You need to take your lies elsewhere. Too many people here know the facts.

---

It's a shame that we didn't give the U.N. more time, as they were requesting, to find the truth.

Instead they had to leave the country, or be bombed.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Shannow:
It's a shame that we didn't give the U.N. more time, as they were requesting, to find the truth.

Instead they had to leave the country, or be bombed.

---

Yes, 12 years was barely adequate. The extra one month would have made a world of difference.

Keith.

 

[keith]

quote:

---

Originally posted by labman:

quote:

---

Originally posted by needtoknow:
Keith, David Kay, Bush's own guy, says WMD is a fantasy snip....

---

One more lying distortion as I have come to expect from you. You may as well quit, your credibility is zilch, zero, nada here. Kay never even flatly said there were no WMD, let alone suggested they were a fantasy. You need to take your lies elsewhere. Too many people here know the facts.

---

Here you go, from the horses mouth:

STATEMENT BY DAVID KAY

Keith.

 

[TC]

"Makes me wonder though, how much did Viacom and other left-winging groups give O'Neil and Clark to write inuendos, half-truth's, etc...BTW, some insiders had said for a long time (last year) that Bush's cabinet was infiltrated by some moderates (interpret - left-wingers who pretend they are in the middle) who were giving Bush some bad information and advice."
____________________________________

What a nice, tidy little package there. Richard Clark, Paul O'Neil, and David Kay -- all respected, veteran professionals who've served numerous presidents both Republican and Democrat -- are now all of a sudden "lefties" and "infiltrators" who were paid to lie and give bad advice. And as always, not a speck of evidence to back up such a claim.

How pathetic...how lame...how contemptuous of the facts...character assassination at its worst.

WHEN THE MESSAGE DRAWS BLOOD, ATTACK THE MESSENGER. DEFLECT, DISTRACT, DISCREDIT AND CONFUSE.

Evidently we'll have to add Colin Powell to the list as well -- that totals at least four "leftie" spies that have infiltrated the Bush White House. From U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2003...When Secretary of State Colin Powell was presented an initial draft of his Feb. 2003 speech for the U.N Assembly, prepared by **** Cheney's office: "According to the report, the draft contained such questionable material that Powell lost his temper, throwing several pages in the air and declaring, 'I'm not reading this. This is bullsh*t!'" http://www.subliminalnews.com/archives/000066.php

 

[Mystic]

I think in these political campaigns there are too many liars accusing other liars of being liars. First side to rise above all of this gutter politics gets my vote.

 

[hi-miler]

An airtight explanation for real world events smacks of conspiricy! No, not the one involving the wierdo CFR or Bildeberger stuff, and no, not the vast right wing stuff. Just the everyday well rehearsed lies. I kind of tend to believe more when it's not perfect. By the way, how come nobody's talking about the incredible rise in gas prices? How come no talk about releasing strategic oil reserves to stabilize the price of gas like the government has in the past? Oh, and I thought Monica was kind of cute back then. Oh well, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Especially when they're squeezed shut in er, ah ... you get the picture.

 

[Shannow]

quote:

---

Originally posted by keith:
Yes, 12 years was barely adequate. The extra one month would have made a world of difference.

Keith.

---

OK, so where are they ?? (The WMD I'm referring to).