I know 01 XLT Sport and many others going to get all fired up about this one, but I can't help but post this. I know this thread will degenerate into justifications for the war in Iraq, but Mr. Rumsfeld really didn't have answers to his own statements. Granted, the clip is edited and we don't see what he said later, but from what we do see, he looks like he was either mistaken or lying in 2002. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he was mistaken.

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

 

Save your moveon bull***** for some furgin pinko ***** somewhere else, that ***** is such a bunch of tripe its not funny

 

That's not moveon bulls*%@. That's what happens when your caught in the headlights.

 

nice answer. i guess that is how people defend something when they have no real defense. it's perfectly fine to disagree with me, but that video clip is from Face the Nation, a national political talk show. It was not produced by MoveOn.org.

frankjr is right, that is called being caught in the headlights.

 

I would have liked to see more. The statements quoted were given out of context; and, the video didn't allow Mr. Rumsfeld to actually answer the questions. Hardly fair. That my friend is typical of Moveon.com and any number of liberal information centers. Isolate a statement and spin it for all it's worth. Mr. Rumsfeld looked like a man who was caught off guard by a statement that implied something he didn't intend. A little skepticism, when visiting a politically biased site or news group, is a good thing.

If you want something to be true badly enough, you'll believe any source that reinforces your own preconceived notions.

 

Moveon.org and their associates at Face the Nation have really proved nothing but their own ignorance of what is going on and the context of what was said.

For example the one brain dead liberal ask Rumsfeid about what he meant as far as “imminent” danger from possible nuclear weapons. First read the “actual” quote they use:

The brain dead liberal goes on to ask, well you mention “imminent” in that quote. Rumsfeid simple stated that SOME have argued that fact and the fact that it was possible in five to seven years. Rumsfeid simple states he would NOT be so CERTAIN on the five to seven years but NEVER states he believes that nuclear threat was “imminet”.

Made the brain dead liberal look like a complete ***…


The following statement based on ALL the FACTS from the ENTIRE FREE world, those associated with the United Nations, is an accurate and factual statement, however if the brain dead liberals had any logic or common sense they could read the following quote:

And find that Rumsfeid NEVER states that Iraq is an “imminent” threat to us as far as WMD’S or nuclear weapons. That is the word games these brain dead liberals at Moveon.org and their associates at Face the Nation continue to play on the American people.

Saddam did indeed have a nuclear program and had been seeking one for quite some time that was proven. In case some forgot the Israelis bombed his first ambitions at a nuclear attempt and Saddam continued after. There have been many documents found in Iraq after this war as well as some people who worked on the nuclear program that have backed up those facts.

What is it with liberals and wanting to live in the yesteryears of their failed life’s? Kerry’s answer is to go back to what Clinton was doing, basically nothing and now and then arresting a few terrorist here and there and feeling good about him self. We saw what happen when Clinton did that with the first World Trade Center bombing and now over 3,000 people are dead based on Clintons terrorist polices and this is the policy Kerry wants which is MORE DEAD AMERICANS so he can feel good….

 

perfect 01 XLT Sport. right on cue. i bet you've never met a liberal you didn't want to smash in the face with a cast iron pan.

you can split hairs about wording all you want, but you and I know very well the Mr. Rumsfeld was trying to make a case to go to war, whether he said "imminent" or "most immediate" threat, we both know what he was going for.

By the way, where are the WMD? Or is that a preconceived notion that I just want to believe?

 

01 XLT Sport, I hear black helicoptors.

 

I am not the one spliting hairs, its your liberal friends in the press...

As far as the WMD'S I couldn't tell you where they are. Can you show me proof that they have indeed been destroyed?

 

Wait for it..........

 

the burden of proof is not on me. our governement wouldn;t believe the Iraqis when the Iraqis said they had destroyed their WMD, so why would they believe it now?

We went to war because we "knew" Saddam Hussein had WMD and could use them. We "knew" he could launch a long range missle in 45 minutes (but later found out that that Brits screwed that piece of "intelligence" up). We started a freakin' war over WMD! Colin Powell went in front of the UN to tell them how dangerous Iraq is with their stash of WMD. The United States Congress had debates over whether to give the president the power to declare war on Iraq when he saw fit, and those debates centered on WMD. (If you listen to NPR then you would have heard these debates live in Oct or Nov of '02.)

Since our government was so dang "sure" that the WMD were there, they need to find them! Until then, our president and his administration looks awfully foolish. They can try and turn it into "it was good because we removed a terrible regime," but the fact is that is not why we went to war in the first place.

...and in case you care, I am a registered Republican who voted for Dubya in the last election. I will not make that mistake again.

 

Actually IMHO (and that of the UN/democrats) the burden of proof was on Saddam. He failed to meet that prerequisite.

 

ViperGrendal is 100% correct. It is the burden of the person making an assertion to prove that assertion.

We knew Sada$$ had WMD because we sold them to him and we watched him use them. Add that he theatened to use them as a supporting factor. So when his regime stated that he got rid of them our response is PROVE IT. If he were able to prove his assertion then everything would be fine and there wouldn't have been a war in Iraq.

The line that "Oh we didn't keep good records/the records got lost" is BS, that government knew or should have known we would ask for proof the WMD had been destroyed. All they had to do was look at South Africa and figure that what they went through was the same thing that Iraq was going to go through.

 

Some validity to your response, however, what peeves me the most, is that, had I posted something here from lucianne.com you'd have told me it was right-wing propoganda, and offered the same response.

Im fully aware that the inteview took place on CBS Sunday morning. I ACTUALLY watched it, did you? The moveon clip was completely taken out of context.

So typical of liberals, if they post a source with a liberal agenda, its legitimate, however, if a conservative source is posted, oh, hes a minion of the brainwashed right.

Liberals........

 

Last time I checked, we went to war because Saddam violated UN resolution after UN resolution and failed to cooperate with inspectors.