An imminent threat?

[Pat McCarthy]

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

[chavez]

Pat McCarthy, you should know that not many people here will take anything said or put out by "moveon.org" seriously.

[marcg]

Then you shouldn't mind that clip then considering it is Rumsfeld on Face The Nation getting caught in his own web of lies ...nothing really that Moveon "created" so to speak.

Who cares who "hosts" the video clip?...obviously a Pro-GOP site isn't going to put that embarassing clip on there.

[chavez]

marcg, there are equally as many if not more clips and quotes of Kerry getting caught in his own lies and u-turns.

I was just stating that many people take what comes out of that place with a grain of salt.

BTW - I didn't know what it was as the damn video clip still hasn't loaded on my end, so I am giving up.

[Nor*Cal]

web of lies??? WTF that quote didn't prove anything... Reaching is what that was...

[marcg]

[Nor*Cal]

I thought Cheney's comments today in conjunction with the new Spanish Govt's endorsement of Kerry could be devastating (for Kerry) but who will actually catch it? Most likely none

Those shows are called part of the academic ghetto for a reason. NOBODY WATCHES THEM.

I don't think that clip proves a single thing. Sorry

[marcg]

"I don't think that clip proves a single thing. Sorry"

I agree it doesn't prove anything, it just makes him look like a Jackass which is whole the point of it.

[Jello John]

It won't download for me.

[*chris*]

hahaha ...busted

[Shawn Madison]

First thing, no one is perfect! There will never be a perfect leader in anyone's eyes. I cannot imagine being in the shoes of our present day politicians. I really do not know how they could have done things different. Would things be better? Would they be worse? Only god knows! I trust they are doing things for the good of the people, not only The United States, but for mankind.

That clip can be construed several different ways-but it really does not fit a negative connotation to me. I only believe in what I research and what I can put together on things I am well versed in. There are several aspects of political science that are way over my head and I am honest about that to myself and I know that I will never understand them thuroughly! I am greatly proud of our Armed Forces and the people of our nation that are helping to protect the US and other nations from the tyranny of Extremist Views and Terrorism!

Maybe Kerry will start opening negotiations with the Iraqi Terrorists who blew up that building today? Or maybe he already has (?)

[Pat McCarthy]

1. What website the clip comes from is irrelevant, since it was on national TV.

2. I don't know why Kerry is even brought up. Did I say anything about Kerry? Just because a Republican is ripped for something doesn't mean that a democrat is perfect, better, or anything of the sort.

3. NorCal, how is it reaching to have Rumsfeld sit there and say he never said it was an immiment threat, then have them show them two quotes where he said that he was an immediate threat? Isn't that showing that he's sitting there lying? I don't think catching someone in a DIRECT lie is a reach by any means.

4. The only thing the clip proves is that either Rumsfeld has a selective memory, is generally stupid, or hopes that Americans are stupid. I'm guessing it's the last one.

Regardless of whether or not you support the Iraq situation, the way Bush and company went about making it happen is not okay. I'm glad Saddam is out of power. But that doesn't mean I want to be lied to and intentionally misled to make that happen. And if you think that they weren't intentionally misleading everyone, you're living in a dream world.

So Rumsfeld trying to say that he didn't say Saddam was an imminent threat and that it's "folklore" when that was the main thing he was saying is pretty weak don't you think?

So, instead of instantly discrediting the source, insulting a democrat that has little to do with the video you're watching, or doing something else to deflect the inherent problem, think about the problem itself.

I didn't post that to promote Kerry or Democrats, nor to fight against Republicans or Bush. I just posted it because I thought it was funny to watch Rumsfelf squirm when caught in his own web of mistruths.

[chavez]

Pat McCarthy, first of all, the clip didn't/wouldn't load for me so I can't speak intelligently about it.

Second, the source does matter due to the agenda they promote.

Third, I can discredit the source instantly. They are who they are and are responsible for their own reputation. I can also point to the politician they currently stand behind and his web of lies and u-turns.

Fourth, "Bush and Company" only followed through on what his predecessor and the D party didn't have the cajones to. There are piles and piles of excerpts from documents and quotes from prominent dems that say that Saddam was an imminent threat and had WMD.

Last, why didn't you just say that you didn't post it to promote either side in the first place?!

[King of the Tigers]

My main problem with the Bush administration is Rumsfeld. I can't stand him. I didn't see the clip but I don't need to see him being busted for me to know he's an arrogant fool.

Despite how much I dislike him though there's no way I'm voting for Kerry. (not that Pat said anything about Kerry. )

[Chales]

LMFAO!!!

Why in the world would anyone want to be a politician??? It's like wanting to be a lawyer... I don't get it.

[King of the Tigers]

I'm going to law school next year.

[Pat McCarthy]

First, okay, so you can't speak intelligently about it, so why discredit it?

Second, what agenda does CBS promote. (I think the clip is from CBS). Because MoveOn.org is showing the clip, doesn't mean they created it. But since you can't see the video, I'll give you some credit. Then I also must ask, since you don't know what's on the video, why are you getting mad at the source. If you could see it you'd see it was on a national TV show, not something MoveOn created.

Third, since CBS/NBC or whoever is the TRUE source, what politician does that show or TV station stand behind? The guy asking Rumsfeld the questions was actually for the war in Iraq anyway! And if you want to discredit a source for supporting a candidate who uses lies and deceptions, then you must discredit anything that has supported Bush as well. You can't have it both ways.

Fourth, following through on what Clinton didn't do by using lies and manipulation doesn't excuse it. I don't care what democrats said about it being an imminent threat. That doesn't mean that Rumsfeld can lie about what he said. Why does it matter? Everyone in the world could say Saddam was an imminent threat, but Rumsfeld still isn't excused for saying he didn't say something he obviously did. He's just trying to cover his own butt for lying and misleading us. People who try and argue for Bush always say the Democrats also do those things. I don't care. I'm not saying a Democrat would have done a better job. But I can still be upset that Bush and company had to be deceptive and blatantly lie to the American public to do what they wanted.

Last, I was curious to see where it went without my opinion!

[chavez]

Pat McCarthy, I wouldn't give any more credit to a site from the other side. The are all overly biased and almost totally useless IMO.

I wouldn't say that CBS/NBC isn't biased or isn't promoting an agenda - both have a seemingly leftward lean.

I can say that IMHO Saddam was an imminent threat to the entire world as he had the means to supply terrorists with everything from guns to WMD. You are right though, it does not give anyone the right to lie to us about any of it - but I don't know what Rumsfeld said on this video so I can't say if I feel he was lying through his teeth, telling the truth, or backed into a corner and talking out his arse, or what.

[Leggester]

I don't respect Rummy boy's trying to weasel out of this. He should stick to what he said. At the very most, use Clintonian logic and define the meaning of imminent.

I still believe Hussein was an imminent threat.

The reasons for war were more than this imminent threat. They were also Hussein's refusal until the last moment to try and deliver info on the WOMD and the last minute destruction of missiles - behind barricades so we could not even verify they were being destroyed. This was covered by CBS also.

Also the capability of lobbing missiles to Isreal. A real and proven threat.

Also the will to use chem. A proven threat again.

Also, invading four countries without provocation. ( and people want to talk about US imperialism )

Logistically, Iraq was a supply depot with beaucoup money for terrorist nations and organizations. More so than Iran or N. Korea, Logistically, to deny terrorists money and tools, Iraq should have been the first target in the war against terror.

Also 12 years and 17 resolutions that were failures.

Please review the Carter Admin/Syria/Lebanon. Very much the same situation.

Folks, this is more the whole picture that liberals and democrats want you to forget. As Kerry has stated, "they", liberal democrats, want to take "their" country back.

As a side note, if you ever hear a lib of dem tut tutting how the AQ bombed Spain, just let them knowit could not have happened. After all, AQ has not ties with Iraq

[Leggester]

Also, Pat is quite correct, although not very fair.

US Citizens have the right, and most likely the requirement, to call appointed and elected officials to account and hold them accountable.

More people should have called Bush on his Pork Barrel spending a couple years ago. Also, more people should have called their representatives and congressman, both rep and dem, on their Pork Barrel initiatives years ago.

As I believe mark Twain said "There ain't nothing more crooked than a politician".

[salmon_tacos]

OK, I'm not reading this whole thread. I'm just going to say that nobody caught anyone in any lie here. The quotes said that....

1. That no other country posed a MORE IMMEDIATE threat than Iraq.
2. That he wouldn't be so sure that Iraq was 5-7 years out on having a nuclear weapon.

If I had said those things and had the honest feelings and thoughts behind them, then, later on, someone asked me, "Did you say that Iraq posed an immediate threat?" I'd say, "Umm...NO."

Believing Iraq to be "a more immediate than other countries" and "not being so sure that Iraq's nuclear threat is at least 5 to 7 years away" is not anywhere close to the same thing as saying that Iraq is an unqualified "immediate threat".

This is retarded. Stupid "points" like this are what make some people hate "liberals", IMHO. They're really shooting themselves in the foot with this ridiculous and illogical propoganda.

[buckthis]

whats kerry going to do about it? bring our troops home?

[Pat McCarthy]

salmon_tacos, he said:

"You and some critcs are the only ones I've heard use the term imminent threat. I didn't use the term, the president didn't, it's a kind of folklore. If you have any cititations I'd like to see them."

Then they produce where he said:

"No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Umm, so the difference is that he used the word immediate instead of imminent. That's pretty much the exact same thing.

You say:

[dumassonwheels89]

Ok I really like President Bush. He may not have always made the wise decisions, but even God made mistakes (women) J/K but even our highest powers make mistakes. I dislike Rumsfield and a few others but President Bush is a good man and I believe he is taking our country in the right direction.

[salmon_tacos]

Pat McCarthy,

I still say he wasn't lying and that there was a difference. When they talk about using the term "imminent threat", they're talking about labelling Iraq as an "imminent threat" (or immediate threat, if you like).

In his quotes, he was comparing Iraq to other countries (probably in response to a question), and questioning some figures. If I said, "Iraq is an imminent threat," I'd be saying that they are a danger RIGHT NOW. Rumsfeld never said that and that's why he denied it.

Example:

Al: Who's the hottest girl in this room?
Bob: Holly is hotter than any other girl in this room.
...
later
...
Al: You said Holly was hot, did you not?
Bob: No, Holly isn't hot. I'm sure I never described Holly with the term 'hot'.
Al: Yeah, you did. You said, "Holly is hotter than any other girl in this room."

Bob never thought Holly was hot so why would he think he said she was hot? There's no lying or contradiction involved.

As far as no terror states being an immediate threat, I don't think they need to be. It's much better to try to deal with emerging threats than to wait until their threat is imminent.

[Pat McCarthy]

We both know that's not how it was intended. He also was comparing to "terror states", not to countries in general. Terror states tend to be threats, sometimes even imminent ones.

I'm not saying I disagree that Iraq was a threat, but Rumsfeld was lying, and it's not the first time. He also squirms really nicely when they point out what he said. If he really meant what you said, don't you think he would've pointed that out?

[salmon_tacos]

I'm just looking at it from a logical and semantic perspective. I don't know of other instances of lying. I'm just saying that it is unreasonable to say that he was lying on that show.

It sounded like he was trying to explain what he might have meant in those quotes, which he was blindsided with, when they cut out. He was obviously sort of bumbling or flustered during the whole portion of the interview that they show.

In any case, I don't think he'd be stupid enough to lie outright about stuff he said when he knows that every public statement he makes is recorded somewhere. The press is just trying to twist his words to create the appearance of dishonesty.

I'm not saying that he's not dishonest. He may very well be. This clip, however, doesn't prove a thing.

[Pat McCarthy]

Yeah, you're right about that, but based on the grand scheme of what he was doing with convincing the public, the intent is there.

[Tyler T]

well...if everyone agrees that Iraq was an imminent threat and something needed to be done, then:

1: Why did Rumsfeld lie about saying it earlier?
2: Why would it matter?


I understand that the whole argument that he just shouldn't lie in the first place...but in this case, what difference did it make? Were the interviewers trying to pursuade that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat?

[Nor*Cal]

You are all arguing semantics. He said she said crap. It's all spin and doesn't hold weight in actual politics.

[Dave W]

Pat, I agree that it's not pretty, but what those quotes show is Rumsfeld coming "close" to lying. But if you break it down, Salmon Tacos has the case wrapped up. Rumsfeld never actually said that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Like I said, it wasn't pretty, but could you imagine having all of your exact words taken down like that and then having them thrown back at you out of context like that? I'd never be able to deal with it. It would be pretty easy to make just about any of us look like a fool if you wrote down verbatim everything we said over a two year period and then looked for inconsistencies. By the way St, nice comparison to the hottest girl conversation. Again, not saying everything was handled perfectly with the war and all, and I'd never actually be dumb enough to try to defend a politician because it's a losing battle no matter how you look at it.

If you want to talk about lying, it burns me up every time a reporter or politician talks about how Bush said the fighting was over during his speech on the aircraft carrier. That's such BS, if you actually listened to the speech, you would remember that he actually went well out of his way to emphasise that the fighting was NOT OVER! But what does everyone claim he said? They claim he said that the fighting was over? Yes, I know you never mentioned Kerry, but he's the one I saw saying it again today in a speech somewhere. He was all ripping on Bush because another bomb went off today killing X number of Americans X number of months after Bush made a speech from an aircraft carrier saying that the war was over. How the heck does he not get called for lying about that? It's complete BS that the media is cool with supporting. Makes me sick.

[Nor*Cal]

Dave W, it's called framing. The media does it in every article. That website did it with the video clip the anchors who asked the question did it as well. It's how the media sells papers or programs.

[nmballa]

Leggester, hate to sound as if im defending iraq but I read somewhere that when iraq invaded kuwait in the first gulf war it was becouse kuwait had promised to share the cost of the war with iran, which iraq fought on kuwaits behalf. But after the war, kuwait refused to pay up, (the payments consisted of the disputed oil fields). Iraq only invaded the rest of kuwait when it found out that kuwait was building landing strips for the u.s. to land its military there to drive out the iraqis. So in some ways their invasion of kuwait was justifiable.
This is what i read so dont go thinking im pro sadam and all this crap. Just repeating what i heard. Take it how you will.

[Leggester]

I believe I heard something along the same lines nmballa.

But, let's remember they are both part of the UN so an invasion was illegal. Iraq should have called for sanctions against Kuwait rather than an invasion.

Since they invaded instead, they were in the wrong.

Interesting twists eh?

Eff 'em all!

Pat, ST, et al, please look up imminent and immediate in the dictionary. You will find these words can be used in a case of "right now" and also in the case of a "foreseeable future".

e.g. Oracle has been and will continue to be an immediate and imminent threat to my company.

[salmon_tacos]

Leggester,

I know what those words can mean different things but show that he was not necessarily lying, I only need to use one example. To prove that he was lying, however, you'd have to cover all the meanings. That was sort of my point. I just didn't spell it out.