PDA

View Full Version : Rumsfeld denies he ever made several pre-war statements




zimv20
Nov 10, 2003, 02:16 AM
link (http://www.starbanner.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2003211090375)


Article published Nov 9, 2003
Rumsfeld retreats, disclaims earlier rhetoric
Rumsfeld denies he ever made several pre-war statements.

WASHINGTON - In the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said U.S. forces would be welcomed by the Iraqi citizenry and that Saddam Hussein had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Now, after both statements have been shown to be either incorrect or vastly exaggerated, Rumsfeld - with the same trademark confidence that he exuded before the war - is denying that he ever made such assertions.

In recent testy exchanges with reporters, Rumsfeld interrupted the questioners and attacked the premise of the questions if they dealt with his pre-war comments about weapons of mass destruction and Americans-as-liberators.

For example, on Feb. 20, a month before the invasion, Rumsfeld fielded a question about whether Americans would be greeted as liberators if they invaded Iraq.

"Do you expect the invasion, if it comes, to be welcomed by the majority of the civilian population of Iraq?" Jim Lehrer asked the defense secretary on PBS' "The News Hour."

"There is no question but that they would be welcomed," Rumsfeld replied, referring to American forces. "Go back to Afghanistan, the people were in the streets playing music, cheering, flying kites, and doing all the things that the Taliban and the al-Qaeda would not let them do."

The Americans-as-liberators theme was repeated by other senior administration officials in the weeks preceding the war, including Rumsfeld's No. 2 - Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz - and Vice President Cheney.

But on Sept. 25, - a particularly bloody day in which one U.S. soldier was killed in an ambush, eight Iraqi civilians died in a mortar strike and a member of the U.S-appointed governing council died after an assassination attempt five days earlier - Rumsfeld was asked about the surging resistance.

"Before the war in Iraq, you stated the case very eloquently and you said . . . they would welcome us with open arms," Sinclair Broadcasting anchor Morris Jones said to Rumsfeld as the prelude to a question.

The defense chief quickly cut him off.
"Never said that," he said. "Never did. You may remember it well, but you're thinking of somebody else. You can't find, anywhere, me saying anything like either of those two things you just said I said."

When testifying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the House Armed Services Committee Sept. 18, 2002, Rumsfeld said Saddam "has amassed large clandestine stocks of biological weapons." including anthrax and botulism toxin and possibly smallpox. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons, including VX and sarin and mustard gas."

Saddam
Saddam "has at this moment stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons," he later added, repeating the charges the next day before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

He repeated that theme in the weeks preceding the war.

Last month, after U.S. weapons hunters reported to the administration and Congress that they have yet to find a single weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, Rumsfeld was asked about his earlier statements.

A reporter at a Pentagon news conference asked: "In retrospect, were you a little too far-leaning in your statement that Iraq categorically had caches of weapons, of chemical and biological weapons, given what's been found to date? You painted a picture of extensive stocks" of Iraqi mass-killing weapons.

"Wait," Rumsfeld interjected. "You go back and give me something that talks about extensive stocks. The U.N. reported extensive stocks. That is where that came from. I said what I believed to be the case, and I don't - I'd be surprised if you found the word 'extensive."'

With the weapons hunt in its eighth month, Rumsfeld also has backtracked on his earlier assertions that American troops knew where the forbidden weapons were hidden.

On March 30, 11 days into the war, Rumsfeld said in an ABC News interview when asked about WMDs: "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

In comments Sept. 10 before the National Press Club, Rumsfeld conceded that he may have overreached. "I said, 'We know they're in that area," Rumsfeld said. "I should have said, 'I believe we're in that area. Our intelligence tells us they're in that area,' and that was our best judgment."

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

Donald Rumsfeld
On March 30, on alleged weapons of mass distruction in Iraq.

"I should have said, 'I believe they're in that area.' "


emphasis mine



manitoubalck
Nov 10, 2003, 03:54 AM
Read my quote.

How true this is

wwworry
Nov 10, 2003, 05:34 AM
He said large stocks not extensive stocks.
He said we would be welcomed but not with open arms.

(& my favorite defence)
They were just a few words. It's not like he lied. He just said the wrong words.

toontra
Nov 10, 2003, 11:48 AM
It would appear that, for whatever reason, a state of affairs has arisen where US politicians have such little respect for the media (and by implication the public) that they blatantly lie knowing they will get away with it.

Rumsfeld's nonsense above is a perfect example of what has happened over the whole Iraq episode. Implication and innuendo, followed by denial.

What I don't understand is why you guys in the US let him get away with it!!!

mactastic
Nov 10, 2003, 12:02 PM
It's all the fault of the liberal media. If they wern't so damn liberal, we wouldn't have these problems with gov't officials lying. You should know that by now.;)

zimv20
Nov 10, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by toontra

What I don't understand is why you guys in the US let him get away with it!!!

like the majority of the people who bothered to vote in 2000, *i* didn't vote for bush

toontra
Nov 10, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by zimv20
like the majority of the people who bothered to vote in 2000, *i* didn't vote for bush

No offense meant, zim :)

Seriously, though, are there not procedures in your constitution that allow you to hold your leaders to account when they are caught lying like this?

zimv20
Nov 10, 2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by toontra
are there not procedures in your constitution that allow you to hold your leaders to account when they are caught lying like this?

i'm sure you know this, but it's nice to review:

the US has 3 branches of gov't: administrative, legislative, judicial. they are supposed to keep an eye on each other, checks and balances as we like to call it.

to answer your question, yes, there are procedures. it is Congress' job to investigate the WH when something is amiss.

so why isn't Congress up in arms?

1. both houses have a republican majority
2. ken starr and his $80 million clinton blowjob and whitewater investigation has soured people on independent investigation, and perhaps other kinds
3. congress is having trouble getting any meaningful information from the WH
4. the dems latest attempt at questioning, vis a vis the "Mission Accomplished" banner, was immediately shut down
5. the GOP has been pretty successful at scaring individuals, imo, w/ the threat of being labeled soft on terrorism or unpatriotic

so, Congress is scared, complicit or stymied. it's a brilliant stroke of power grabbing, on the WH's part. they can do what they want, lie about it at the time, lie about it later (c.f. rumsfeld's recent denial of remarks he'd made), and feel immune from consequences. all in the name of making america safer. and the ****-for-brains american public is too scared to do anything about it.

i'm sick about it. my country is going down the crapper, and most of my brain-dead countrypersons seem more than happy to remain idiotically unquestioning.

Pinto
Nov 10, 2003, 03:46 PM
OMG.

The US press is actually asking awkward questions.

The worm is turning.

manitoubalck
Nov 10, 2003, 05:49 PM
Rumsfelt is the caused the problems in the 80's when he sold the arms. Invading a country some 20 years later is not the solution.

jonapete2001
Nov 10, 2003, 06:12 PM
There are many rules and procedures to hold politicians accountable for their "lies" and other bad behavior. All the Americans here will be able to vote their conscience when the polls open this time next year.

The problem for the oposition is that 49% of America likes this guy, 49% like any number of democrats, and the rest like anyone who has no chance at winning. It will be a tough battle to win the white house in 04.

After Clinton took the white house and turned it into what ever you want to call it(not a good thing) people do not care any more.

Besides anti war people are missing the bigger issue. what ever the reason we(the US) went to war, whether it me oil, pride, money, the world is better off with out hussein in power. Can anyone say that the end result in the middle east will not be better than it was. Many claim that this will bread a new generation of anti american terrorists. Like that wasn't happening already?

zimv20
Nov 10, 2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by jonapete2001

After Clinton took the white house and turned it into what ever you want to call it(not a good thing) people do not care any more.


what would you call it? i recall low unemployment, no unilateral wars, low crime, high standard of living, record numbers of first time home buyers, et. al.

if all it takes is someone to give bush a blowjob to get that back, i vote for the blowjob.

Can anyone say that the end result in the middle east will not be better than it was. Many claim that this will bread a new generation of anti american terrorists. Like that wasn't happening already?

i can say we don't know what's going to happen. regardless of how inhumane hussein was to his people, his damage was, in fact, contained.

to equate one kind of terrorism increase w/ another is pointless. you have to examine the rates of the increase.

the ONLY way to solve terrorism is to remove the hatred. invading iraq and promising to reshape the middle east is one of the most effective ways i can think of to increase hatred.

mactastic
Nov 10, 2003, 06:23 PM
It's a matter of whether we are creating more terrorists than we are killing off. If Iraq accelerated the recruitment of new terrorists, that is a Bad Thing. Obviously things are better without Saddam in power, but there are people out there as bad or worse than he was. For better or worse, we are now committed to rebuilding Iraq whatever the cost to us in blood and money. Half-assing it is not going to cut it here. We as Americans need to be ready to make some sacrifices. Iraq is going to cost us plenty, and even if we were lied to about the cost and the length of time and how we would be recieved by the Iraqi populace we now need to foot the bill. Maybe that's not what people were hoping for, nor was it what the administration told us to expect in the run-up to the war, but that was one of the potential downsides that the anti-war crowd warned of. Not because we loved Saddam or any such nonsense that the right tried to paint with as "soft on terror" "unpatriotic" or just plain "wussies".

Regardless. We are now committed. There is no going back. We now owe the Iraqi people a stable, non-corrupt, and functioning government. It's the old "you break it, you bought it" principle.

toontra
Nov 10, 2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by jonapete2001

Besides anti war people are missing the bigger issue. what ever the reason we(the US) went to war, whether it me oil, pride, money, the world is better off with out hussein in power.

If you are prepared to tolerate your leaders misleading you, then denying it later, I can only say that you deserve the worst of outcomes for your country's future.

I'm angry because they appear to have hoodwinked Tony Blair as well!

manitoubalck
Nov 10, 2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by toontra
I'm angry because they appear to have hoodwinked Tony Blair as well!

Don't forget little Johnny down under.

wwworry
Nov 10, 2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by jonapete2001
Besides anti war people are missing the bigger issue. what ever the reason we(the US) went to war, whether it me oil, pride, money, the world is better off with out hussein in power.

No you are missing the bigger issue. Iraq may eventually be better off but we in the US are worse off. It is not OK for our government to lie to us "for our own good". An administration that actually respected us would have told the truth. They are so cynical they won't even admit what is on the public record. They will not tolerate questions about their lies.

You could not tolerate a lie about a private affair but you will tolerate lies that lead to many deaths. What's wrong with you?

zimv20
Nov 10, 2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by wwworry
No you are missing the bigger issue. Iraq may eventually be better off but we in the US are worse off. It is not OK for our government to lie to us "for our own good". An administration that actually respected us would have told the truth. They are so cynical they won't even admit what is on the public record. They will not tolerate questions about their lies.

You could not tolerate a lie about a private affair but you will tolerate lies that lead to many deaths. What's wrong with you?

welcome back :-)

Daveman Deluxe
Nov 10, 2003, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by toontra
It would appear that, for whatever reason, a state of affairs has arisen where US politicians have such little respect for the media (and by implication the public) that they blatantly lie knowing they will get away with it.

Part of the problem is that the media only acts as a stenographer. As a result, the politicians are the ones who decide what issues are important, not the media (as it should be, IMO), and certainly not the public. Politicians are thus empowered to pretend that any issue is important rather than those which really matter.

Sayhey
Nov 11, 2003, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by jonapete2001

Besides anti war people are missing the bigger issue. what ever the reason we(the US) went to war, whether it me oil, pride, money, the world is better off with out hussein in power. Can anyone say that the end result in the middle east will not be better than it was. Many claim that this will bread a new generation of anti american terrorists. Like that wasn't happening already?

I can envision a result that would be worse.

A partitioned Iraq. The North, a Kurdish mini-state at war with Turkey. The South, dominated by fundamentalist Shia leaders that support not only an Islamic state there, but also help spread it to other states in the middle east. The central and western parts of Iraq could well end up in a no man's land of fighting for influence between the North and the South and Saudi Arabia as well. All of this after losing who knows how many US soldiers and killing thousands more Iraqis. Sound better?

I hated Saddam and campaigned with Iraqi friends in the mid 80s to support those who tried to oust him. That was when Dubya's Daddy and the rest of the Reagan administration was helping to arm him against the Iranians. So kindly don't tell me about how bad he was.

Sometimes it pays to think about the consequences of one's actions. It appears as if this administration launched this war to further its geopolitical ambitions and in order to to convince themselves how easy it all was going to be they began by blowing smoke up their own a**** instead of listening to honest intelligence.

pseudobrit
Nov 11, 2003, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Sometimes it pays to think about the consequences of one's actions. It appears as if this administration launched this war to further its geopolitical ambitions and in order to to convince themselves how easy it all was going to be they began by blowing smoke up their own a**** instead of listening to honest intelligence.

Bingo. There was no realistic plan in place.

They lied so long and so hard, and went to such extremes to find others who agreed with their ideals, that they believed it.

You can't base you whole plan on the ramblings of a whacko extremist exile group that's been calling for invasion for 10 years. You're going to be spoon-fed whatever they know you want to hear.

So the plan basically became to just go in and let things naturally work themselves out. In that respect, the plan is working, just not the way they were hoping for.

zimv20
Nov 11, 2003, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by pseudobrit

So the plan basically became to just go in and let things naturally work themselves out.

taking a high school physics course and learning about entropy would have dispelled that notion.

too bad bush is such an uneducated partyboy.