Rumsfeld Heckled by Former CIA Analyst

[ALiberalModerate]

We know he moved material out of Iraq, we know he had WMD material that were never account for.

We do not know that. Some right wing rags claim that, but we certainly do not know that. Moreover, if Saddam did, then it actually makes the case for war even worse because the whole point of the war was to prevent Saddam from dispersing WMD to terrorists or terrorist states, not to give him a reason to do so before we went in. But if you want to hang your hat on that, then go ahead.

 

[oldreliable67]

Please read my post again. I did not say that Rumsfeld lied about the WMD being where he said they were, I said that he lied when he stated that he did not say he knew where they were. He is trying to deny what he said previously. This is not the first time he has attempted to lie about his previous statements, just the latest example.

Looks like I did in fact misread your post. As to whether or not he lied about saying that he did not say that he knew where they were, I guess I'll have to go back and find a transcript of that. Do you recall the occasion, news conference, public appearance, or ???

the politics of the messenger

There are times when the message is unequivocally the result of the messenger's political persuasions. One should always question the motivations - and wisdom - of those who appear to embrace and espouse radical positions, either far left or far right. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that they can't be like a stopped clock: right twice a day.

 

[Pen]

Ahhhh I think this guy was in the Kennedy administration? But if you point is that when 3 out of tens of thousands of former CIA employees object to a policy then we should change it then I guess we don't need elections anymore and we certainly will never have a policy at all.



Why do you believe this man has anymore information than you?


It was a bogus sophomoric attempt to flame Rumsfield, pitting a question based on false premises.

No one lied about anything, time to face reality.

One inconvenient reality would be that McGovern was the senior intel officer that gave George H. W. Bush his morning intel briefings. You remember, don't you? "Desert Storm" ring a bell?

 

[Stinger]

One inconvenient reality would be that McGovern was the senior intel officer that gave George H. W. Bush his morning intel briefings. You remember, don't you? "Desert Storm" ring a bell?

So? Does that make him forever the authority in the matter, taht what ever he proclaims is the truth? No. His more recent history exposes the luny that he is now and that's what matters.

 

[Stinger]

We do not know that. Some right wing rags claim that, but we certainly do not know that.

The overwhelming evidence is that he did. And the material which UNSCOM said he had was never accounted for.

Moreover, if Saddam did, then it actually makes the case for war even worse because the whole point of the war was to prevent Saddam from dispersing WMD to terrorists or terrorist states, not to give him a reason to do so before we went in.

Versus his expanding the program and producing more and higher qualitly materials? I don't think so. And the issue was clouded from the get-go. It was never only or uniquely about what he had. He didn't have to have much in storage because he could produce it. His head of quality control told UNSCOM that the nerve gas they could produce was not high quality and not very stable. They could not store it for long periods so didn't make HUGE stockpiles. But we found lots of precursors stored in his munitions dumps and we found reference strains of biologicals. Did some make it out, seems to have along with some equipment, but there was nothing we could do about that.

But if you want to hang your hat on that, then go ahead.

That he was a WMD threat and was becoming cozy with our enemies, I am more than happy to hang my hat on that and be glad we rid the world of the threat that he was.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Looks like I did in fact misread your post. As to whether or not he lied about saying that he did not say that he knew where they were, I guess I'll have to go back and find a transcript of that. Do you recall the occasion, news conference, public appearance, or ???

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

A week and a half into the war, Rumsfeld was asked on March 30, 2003, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," whether he found it curious that U.S. forces had not yet found weapons of mass destruction.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld responded, according to a Pentagon transcript of the interview.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat," Rumsfeld stated.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1924653&page=2

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/IraqCoverage/story?id=1924635

There are times when the message is unequivocally the result of the messenger's political persuasions. One should always question the motivations - and wisdom - of those who appear to embrace and espouse radical positions, either far left or far right. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that they can't be like a stopped clock: right twice a day.

Yes, I agree, which is why I wish Rumsfeld would answer the question McGovern asked him, why the administration lied in order to go to war in Iraq. There was not adequate justification, so the administration cherry picked intelligence and exaggerated the parts that supported the war while ignoring the parts that didn't support it. Now they are saying that the intelligence community gave them "bad" intelligence. Yes, the quality of the intelligence wasn't great, but the administration foolishly seized upon the info from single sources and ignored other sources saying the opposite, because the one source helped the case for war. Chalabi, anyone? That SHOULD make you question the the motivation and wisdom of the administration....which is exactly what so many Americans are doing now.....belatedly, but better late than never, I guess.

Now they are trying to revise history.....nope, I'm not buying it and it doesn't look like most Americans are either.

Finally, the press is starting to reawaken. It's about time.

 

[oldreliable67]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

Count me unconvinced that Rumsfeld lied. After reading the two sources that you provided, I come away with the impression that Rumsfeld related the intelligence that he had been provided and that he believed was the best available. His further comments to

We will all read into this and get out of it the conclusions that we are pre-disposed to believe. I am admittedly pre-disposed to believe that Rumsfeld did not lie, that he he was articulating the best information that he had available. Consequently, before I'm convinced that Rumsfeld lied, the standard of proof is going to have to be considerably higher than anything that I've seen so far.

From your source:

At an Oct. 24, 2002, Pentagon briefing, Rumsfeld explained himself this way: "I have every reason to believe that what the Central Intelligence Agency gave me is correct. And that's why I said it's bulletproof. Because I said, 'Tell me what you know,' and they told me what they knew. And I said, 'Fine. Tell me, when I get all these questions from the press, what I can say. What's unclassified, what could we present.' And they gave me this that I read. And it's just that simple."

 

[RightinNYC]

One inconvenient reality would be that McGovern was the senior intel officer that gave George H. W. Bush his morning intel briefings. You remember, don't you? "Desert Storm" ring a bell?

Yea, he was, 16 years ago before he retired.

So why on earth would he know anything about the events of the past 5 years?

 

[BigDog]

Yea, he was, 16 years ago before he retired.

So why on earth would he know anything about the events of the past 5 years?

Really, how much do you need to know to recognize a lie this balatant? Rumsfeld said he knew, that we knew where the wmds were and that links to Al Qaeda were bullet proof. Since the intel at the time was clear that we didn't know and that such ties were doubtful, how can anyone claim Rumsfeld wasn't lying? It really is a simple matter of comparing what he said with the actual intel.

 

[NYStateofMind]

Count me unconvinced that Rumsfeld lied. After reading the two sources that you provided, I come away with the impression that Rumsfeld related the intelligence that he had been provided and that he believed was the best available. His further comments to

We will all read into this and get out of it the conclusions that we are pre-disposed to believe. I am admittedly pre-disposed to believe that Rumsfeld did not lie, that he he was articulating the best information that he had available. Consequently, before I'm convinced that Rumsfeld lied, the standard of proof is going to have to be considerably higher than anything that I've seen so far.

From your source:

What about the lie he told at the podium last week?? It's a FACT that he lied, the media has had a field day replaying the actual footage showing him saying exactly what McGovern claimed he said, and then his denial of saying it.

That's not proof enough? :roll:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Really, how much do you need to know to recognize a lie this balatant? Rumsfeld said he knew, that we knew where the wmds were and that links to Al Qaeda were bullet proof. Since the intel at the time was clear that we didn't know and that such ties were doubtful, how can anyone claim Rumsfeld wasn't lying? It really is a simple matter of comparing what he said with the actual intel.

Welp considering that George Tenet said that the WMD intel was "a slam dunk," and had all 15 intelligence agencies responsible for writing the NIE concurring I would say that it was a problem with the intelligence agencies and not the Department of Defense; furthermore, like Rumsfeld said Zarqawi was in a Baghdad hospital prior to the invasion not to mention all of the connections mentioned in the 9-11 Commission Report further corrobarated by 2 Weekly Standard Articles on the subject written by Stephen Hayes. This CIA agent was a partisan hack who was misrepresenting the facts in his attempted ambush of Mr. Rumsfeld.

 

[oldreliable67]

What about the lie he told at the podium last week?? It's a FACT that he lied, the media has had a field day replaying the actual footage showing him saying exactly what McGovern claimed he said, and then his denial of saying it.

That's not proof enough? :roll:

No, actually, its not. I think this is an instance of an unfortunate lack of clarity, one which permitted an incomplete or partial statement to be taken in a context in which it was not intended.

You take it the way that you want; I'll take it the way that I want.

 

[NYStateofMind]

No, actually, its not. I think this is an instance of an unfortunate lack of clarity, one which permitted an incomplete or partial statement to be taken in a context in which it was not intended.

You take it the way that you want; I'll take it the way that I want.

Nonsense. Please explain what was unclear, or how the statement was taken in a context that was not intended.

On March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld clearly stated that we knew where the WMD were, and proceeded to name specific places. Three years later, he flatly denied that he said that.

Please back up your assertion that it is not a lie.

 

[Gill]

On March 30, 2003, Rumsfeld clearly stated that we knew where the WMD were, and proceeded to name specific places. Three years later, he flatly denied that he said that.

And how did Rumsfield know where the WMDs were?? Did he go find them himself? No, of course not. He was told by the intelligence services where they thought they were.

 

[oldreliable67]

Please back up your assertion that it is not a lie.

It appeared to me to be a effort at saying words to the effect, "Those statements were based on the best evidence and assurances of the US intel community." But in the effort of responding to the heckler, the statement wasn't completed. Criticize me for reading more into it than you think is appropriate if you wish; you disagree and thats fine. Like I said, "You take it the way that you want; I'll take it the way that I want."

 

[zk655]

Yes absolutely

For me the story isn't so much that Rumsfeld literally got caught lying and then got caught again trying to cover up his lie, and then had no answer for why he lied or why he tried to cover up his lie.

This would and should have been the top news story for months.

Had it been ANY other administration, it would have been.

However, what concerned me most was the fact that it was the first instinct of the people around him (including members of the "press") to shout him down and have security shut him up and throw him out.

What the f u # k have we become when citizens of this country aren't allowed to ask questions of his/her leaders during A FREAKIN Press Conference.

This man DIDNT heckle Rumsfeld. He asked a legitimate question, that the Secretary of Defense had no answer to.

I was hoping that this would have been addressed on the Sunday shows, but of course, in typical cowardice fasion, they focused on that dummy that pretended to be Bush at the Press Corps dinner, and other nonsense.

There certainly is a bias in the Press, but it SURE AS HELL aint liberal. These cowards make me sick.

 

[zk655]

You know I keep hearing about all of these things that we have found in Iraq.

Yet NOBODY in the administration, millitary, or press has heard of any of them. I wonder why that is.

 

[Gill]

However, what concerned me most was the fact that it was the first instinct of the people around him (including members of the "press") to shout him down and have security shut him up and throw him out.

What the f u # k have we become when citizens of this country aren't allowed to ask questions of his/her leaders during A FREAKIN Press Conference.

What are you talking about??? READ THE STORY!! Rumsfield did not allow security to throw him out, in fact he let him rant for an extended period of time.

When security guards tried removing McGovern, the analyst, during his persistent questions of Rumsfeld, the defense secretary told them to let him stay. The two continued to spar.

"You're getting plenty of play," Rumsfeld told McGovern, who is an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq.

 

[zk655]

What are you talking about??? READ THE STORY!! Rumsfield did not allow security to throw him out, in fact he let him rant for an extended period of time.

I DID read the story. I also heard the audio and watched the video clip. The security made moves to escort him out while he was asking his question.

Rumsfeld waived them off and then he proceeded to try and bulls#it his way out of the question. When the organizers realized that Rumsfeld wasn't going to be able to placate Mc Govern with nonsense, they abruptly moved on to a different topic.

My point was that I find it frightening that people's FIRST instincts have been to shut people up and kick them out when they ask questions of this administration

 

[Gill]

I DID read the story. I also heard the audio and watched the video clip. The security made moves to escort him out while he was asking his question.

Rumsfeld waived them off and then he proceeded to try and bulls#it his way out of the question. When the organizers realized that Rumsfeld wasn't going to be able to placate Mc Govern with nonsense, they abruptly moved on to a different topic.

My point was that I find it frightening that people's FIRST instincts have been to shut people up and kick them out when they ask questions of this administration

Bottom line is that he was allowed to spew his venom at Rumsfield without interruption. The man is a known anti-Bush, anti-war zealot.

 

[oldreliable67]

My point was that I find it frightening that people's FIRST instincts have been to shut people up and kick them out when they ask questions of this administration

Asking questions and being intentionally disruptive are two entirely different things.

 

[zk655]

Asking questions and being intentionally disruptive are two entirely different things.

I absolutely agree. I have no problem with people screaming over other speakers being removed from a press conference.

However, that wasn't the case with McGovern. He asked a question at a Q and A session. Which I believe is what you are supposed to do. Just because Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't like the question, it doesn't make it disruptive.

 

[zk655]

Bottom line is that he was allowed to spew his venom at Rumsfield without interruption. The man is a known anti-Bush, anti-war zealot.

Whether or not the man is anti Bush and/or anti war is irrelevent. He asked a valid question that the Secretary of Defense had no real answer for. Mr. McGovern's political ideology played no part in Mr Rumsfeld's inability to answer a LEGITIMATE question.

Rumsfeld tried to spin the same tired BS and he was called out on it. So he tried to lie. He got called on it. Then he fumbled around and came up with the stuff about soldiers wearing suits. He was called out again. And again he fumbled. When it became apparent that he couldn't answer the question, they moved on to a different topic.

The onus was not on Mr. McGovern for asking a question. The onus was on Mr. Rumsfeld to answer it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I absolutely agree. I have no problem with people screaming over other speakers being removed from a press conference.

However, that wasn't the case with McGovern. He asked a question at a Q and A session. Which I believe is what you are supposed to do. Just because Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't like the question, it doesn't make it disruptive.

Was or was not the man allowed to ask his questions? This Mcgovern guy is a partisan hack who has made statements to the effect that Bush would try to construct another 9-11 type event in order to boost his poll numbers. It was Mcgovern who got up on that stage and misrepresented the facts and spun the revisionist history just like so many of the anti-war left love to do these days.

 

[Gill]

I absolutely agree. I have no problem with people screaming over other speakers being removed from a press conference.

However, that wasn't the case with McGovern. He asked a question at a Q and A session. Which I believe is what you are supposed to do. Just because Mr. Rumsfeld doesn't like the question, it doesn't make it disruptive.

And he was allowed to ask his question wasn't he? Rumsfield is under no obligation to answer him to his, or your, satisfaction.