rumsfeld v. ex-cia heckler (video)
keithvanhorn
3,855 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Yz5osr2Uk 
MSNBC did a fact check and every sentence used by the heckler was a direct quote from Rumsfeld.
MSNBC did a fact check and every sentence used by the heckler was a direct quote from Rumsfeld.
Comments
But atleast he let him speak. Stopped those dudes from throwing him out.
dude completely sons rummy in like 5 minutes.
the weapons location charge: Rumsfeld stutters and then changes the subject.
the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection charge: Rumsfeld refers to the time Zarqawi was in Baghdad (weak: he was there for medical treatment and as far as I remember Zarqawi was not even an Al Qaeda operative at that time; the press invented that connection later, right?).
and the chemical weapons thing: Rumsfeld goes for the cheap shot, starting with "our men and women in battle..." and then proceeds to describe how they were wearing chemical protective gear because they "believed" there were chemical weapons. (nonsense: troops wear what they're ordered to wear right? and it was HIS DEPARTMENT that would have ordered it...so that proves nothing).
that dude at the mic has some balls on him (no ayo).
thanks for posting.
damn I hope this guy doesn't get merked for this (or have his pension checks start getting "lost in the mail" or some shit).
He's actually pretty well known and has been on all kinds of TV and talk shows before for a while now.
In October 2002 the administration added the claim that Iraq was harboring Abu Zarqawi who they claimed was an Al Qaeda leader. This was first aired in a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati. At the same time the intelligence community said that Zarqawi was not a member of Al Qaeda, but rather led his own terrorist organization that had occasionally cooperated with bin Laden. A January 2003 CIA report found that Zarqawi had a good relationship with Iraq, but that he did not constitute a link with Al Qaeda.
Today on Fox News they were running "outtakes" from the new Zarqawi video, where he mishandles his machine gun. They were all like "It's like the Keystone Kops". Yeah, sure only it's the version of the Keystone Kops where they're just competent enough to kill US soldiers every fucking day.
[/b]
I agree. Fox news should show zarqawi the respect he deserves. Fox news blatent bias against islamists is disgusting.
Not surprisingly, you missed my point entirely.
The comment was on the ridiculous mindset at Fox News that says that the right way to approach the enemy they consider dangerous is to ridicule them at a sixth grade level. The "fair and balanced" approach is apparently to channel some 60 year old guy keeping a barstool warm down at the American Legion.
Hey, did you know that our vice president shot his friend in the face with a shotgun?[/b]
As far as comedy goes, that takes top dog.
I wouldn't give him any praise for that.
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/may2006/050506askingquestion.htm
The chemical weapons Saddam used on Kurds and Iran were (I was unable to confirm this, but it was mentioned by Duke professor Dr. Moosa (sic)) made in Virginia. There could have been a lot more
No, its you who missed my point. I was implying that you were attacking fox news based on a ludicrous premise. So fucking what if fox news ridiculed zarqawi based upon that footage? Im pretty sure you consider bush dangerous but have you ever objected to the leftist media's constant portrayal of him as a bumbling retard?
youre an ideologue
It's not the leftist media's portrayal - it's how Bush portrays himself. When he manages to handle something, anything competently*, then he will cease to be a bumbling retard.
* From 9-11, New Orleans flood response and Iraq, to opening doors or speaking coherently. Please insert below something, anything, he has handled competently to off-set the major-league fuck-ups the President of the United States of America has done to tarnish the words I just used to describe his current role of office.
You think my premise is ludicrous because you share their somewhat backward attitude toward delivering the news. If there was in fact as "leftist media" in this country, I wouldn't put any more faith in what they say than I do right wing crap like Fox.
You're deluded.
Man, for a baiter/alter-ego, your posts are so off base it just takes all the fun out of it. I want someone like you to make my blood boil, but you always end up making me shrug and think, "well, reading that was a waste of time." you need to step up the game...at least sabadaba can make me angry and laugh. Your just...Unremarkable.
I mean, defending Fox News? Let's go back to arguing the raerity of Leo Sayer...
But maybe he was not lying. Maybe he was just mistaken, incorrect, wrong. If you tell your freind to pick up your keys in your desk, but they turn out to be on your chair. Did you lie? Or were you wrong?
outstanding analogy...cause if you are "mistaken" about where your car keys are that will also lead to thousands of innocent people dying.
Unless of course you were lying about having a car in the first place...
Does someone have to be under oath at a Congressional Hearing to mislead, decieve and manipulate? THEY ARE NOT TRUTHFUL, V! This whole war in Iraq is in vain, wasteful and a complete dog of a misadventure. And to quote Rummy "That is a fact".
not only did rumsfeld say that iraq had wmds, but he also said "we know where they are." how is that not a lie?
you need to drop the argument of whether rumsfeld was just "mistaken". remember, the national inquirer ususally has a source when it reports that britney spears is secretly married to an alien from Jupitor. the issue here is whether rumsfeld had a credible source. which he obviously didn't.
Rumsfeld has never said he was mistaken. In fact in this video he denies ever saying there were WMD. If he was mistaken, he is lying today.
Clearly, despite the fact that a hundred weapons inspectors were on the ground at the time, with free reign to look where ever they wanted, The Administration decided to go with the worse possible intelligence instead of good intelligence. They, and you, keep defending that bad intelligence. The only good intelligence that there were WMD is the fact that 10 years earlier he had used them. For the secretary of defense to public state, as he did, that we know where they are based on bad intelligence was irresponsible at best.
that's my point. If he was lying the whole time, why would he say he knew where they were right before he was about to be exposed?
Well, call it selective lying- if four coworkers tell you that your keys are on your desk, and one says they are on your chair. And, then those four coworkers show you pictures of your keys on your desk, and you still insist on believing the coworker that says that they are on your chair because that is what you stubbornly thought was the case... You could be said to be lying.
Likewise, if you ignore reams of intelligence that suggest something contradictory to what you are saying, and then that turns out to be true, and it is widely established that you ignored it. Well, that's not a blithe little mistake- it took the effort and premidation of a lie.
To start, those weapons inspectors concluded that there were 12 remaining disarmament tasks for Saddam. This was based on the fact that they could not account for the weapons Saddam admitted he had prior to the first gulf war. Furthermore, it's a stretch to claim that those inspectors had "free reign." The inspectors were spied on at the time; they could not interview scientists without chaperones (as the UNSC resolution required); and Saddam's spokespeople at various points threatened to shoot down intelligence aircraft.
It's also a stretch to say there was a reserve of "good intelligence" that said Saddam did not have the weapons programs at least for biological and chemical. But even in the case of the aluminum tubes, the dissent of the State Department and Energy Department was in the context of 14 other intelligence agencies signing off on the intelligence. The Energy Department did by the way think Saddam had a nuke program because of import of specified magnets, they believed would be used for centrifuges. The National Intelligence Estimate, which was written by the CIA and signed off by George Tenet (bureaucratic foe of Cheney and neocons) said Saddam had the weapons. Almost every european intelligence service agreed on these basic parameters as well. Furthermore The Clinton administration said before the sanctions regime against Iraq broke down entirely that Saddam had been concealing these weapons programs. Sandy Berger made this speech in 2000, AFTER the ban on direct flights to baghdad had been effectively broken and the monitors at the Jordanian ports for the UN had left. This is important because in order to believe the thesis that there was "good intelligence" suggesting Saddam had no wmd, we would have to think that at the moment the UN's mechanism for monitoring these programs had completely collapsed, Saddam had gotten rid of the weapons. To believe this, you would have to surrender to the view that all arms control agreements are futile. Arms control agreements work based on confidence building measures met by the regime or regimes that must disarm. Saddam had flouted those confidence building measures.
To sum up. I am making an appeal for the clarity of language. There is a different between a deliberate lie and being mistaken. And the Bush lied side have yet to make their case in a serious way. It's amazing the New York Times took it seriously enough this weekend on their editorial page.
why did bush repeatedly say that there was a link between iraq and 9-11 when there is absolutely no proof? why does the white house claim that they are allowed to use wiretaps without following the proper legal procedures? why did we hold "suspected terrorists" for months and even years without giving them due process of law? why did we authorize using torture at guantanamo bay?