Rumsfeld never said "we know where they are"

[Neomega]

In Atlanta:

Ray McGovern, who was in the CIA for twenty seven years asked him why he lied about the run-up to the Iraq war. Rumsfeld then proceeded to lie to McGovern to cover up his earlier statements about WMD's being in Iraq. He also tries to use the troops in his defense, a terrible strategy, but not uncommon unfortunately.


video here:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/04.html#a8164
direct link: http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CNN-Rumsfeld-McGovern-Question.wmv

Rumsfeld: ...it appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

McGovern: You said you knew where they were.

Rumsfeld: I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were and...

McGovern: You said you knew where they were. Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.

Rumsfeld: My words-my words were that-no-no, wait a minute--wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second....




++++++++++++
but from This week with Mr. Stephonopolous:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Finally, weapons of mass destruction. Key goal of the military campaign is finding those weapons of mass destruction. None have been found yet. There was a raid on the Answar Al-Islam Camp up in the north last night. A lot of people expected to find ricin there. None was found. How big of a problem is that? And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction?

SEC. RUMSFELD: Not at all. If you think -- let me take that, both pieces -- the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

********************************

Look at that, Rumsfeld, lying to cover his lie. Should we expect any less from him? He was not talking of "suspected sites" as he tries to so eloquently rewrite history as.


This is not just rumsfeld gettingold either, everyone else in the world remembers those outlandish claims. He made it seem so concrete, "we knew where they were!"

 

[bathsheba666]

Not to forget his classic comments about the whereabouts of Osama baby, during the Afghan escapade

"We know exactly where Osama bin Laden is.
He is in Afghanistan,
or he is in Pakistan,
or he is somewhere else"

 

[ChrTh]

Meh, who cares? I guess I won't vote for Rummy in 2008.

 

[Xenocrates]

I disagree, Rumsfeld knew exactly where the WMD's were - all in his mind.

 

[Masquerouge]

The problem is that the people who support Rumsfeld and Bush do so not because they tell the truth.
In other words : so what ?

 

[YNCS]

A politician is exposed as a liar. Who would have thought it? Is such a thing possible?

 

[FriendlyFire]

Lets hope this isnt systemetic of hes command and leadership capabilities
Or otherwise the US forces in Iraq and Afagnistain are going to be in trouble ... no wait.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

He also said:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

 

[LLXerxes]

Not to forget his classic comments about the whereabouts of Osama baby, during the Afghan escapade

"We know exactly where Osama bin Laden is.
He is in Afghanistan,
or he is in Pakistan,
or he is somewhere else"

Rummy got thrashed in that conference. And yet we're still trusting him with... anything?

 

[Stylesjl]

A politician lying!? Amazing!

 

[Red Stranger]

Did you guys even watch the video. Just by the sound of the audience, you can tell that most people believed that the accuser was crazy. Listen to the cheer when Rumsfeld said he didn't lie. Most people believe he told the truth to the best of his knowledge.

I also thought that Rumsfeld was very honorable in letting the guy stay when security was going to take the guy out. It takes real honor to do such a thing.

 

[Neomega]

Did you guys even watch the video. Just by the sound of the audience, you can tell that most people believed that the accuser was crazy. Listen to the cheer when Rumsfeld said he didn't lie. Most people believe he told the truth to the best of his knowledge.

I also thought that Rumsfeld was very honorable in letting the guy stay when security was going to take the guy out. It takes real honor to do such a thing.

I sure did. Rumsfeld was amongst friends, that's why they cheered.

The reaction of the audience has nothing to do with the authenticity of the question. Logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum

Real honorable... notice he never retorted when the guy said, "Yes, you did", and then proceeded to quote Rumsfeld exactly.

Honorable.... Rumsfeld lied through his teeth to try to get out of the tough question. (I didn't say that...) Rumsfeld doesn't want to face his boasting arroganc ehe had 3 years ago when he was so sure all his plans would carry out effortlessly.

 

[The Yankee]

Did you guys even watch the video. Just by the sound of the audience, you can tell that most people believed that the accuser was crazy. Listen to the cheer when Rumsfeld said he didn't lie. Most people believe he told the truth to the best of his knowledge.

I also thought that Rumsfeld was very honorable in letting the guy stay when security was going to take the guy out. It takes real honor to do such a thing.

I agree on the letting him stay part. It's a little sad that security goes to remove someone merely for intellectually challenging Rumsfeld on this. He didn't charge the stage and he didn't act like a threat to anything other than maybe someone's thoughts. Plus, Rumsfeld got himself a few points for moving on quietly after letting him stay.

However, I would not judge the view of the nation based on an audience in an auditorium, especially if it's one that may be friendlier to Rumseld/the administration. The question was not about the sound of the people around him, but of the words spoken by this man and by Rumsfeld (including those from "This Week" which shows he was wrong in his recollection).

 

[Red Stranger]

The questioner was so far left in his bias that there is no way to speak and have him listen. Oh Zarqawi had no connections with Saddam, yet Saddam treated him in the Baghdad hospital. We know that Zarqawi was in Baghdad at that time, but we can convienently ignore that fact, because it proves that Rumsfeld wasn't lying.

 

[malclave]

Did you guys even watch the video. Just by the sound of the audience, you can tell that most people believed that the accuser was crazy.

Well, he DID testify in front of Conyer's tea party/impeachment hearings that the U.S. invaded Iraq so Israel could dominate the Middle East.

 

[Neomega]

The questioner was so far left in his bias that there is no way to speak and have him listen. Oh Zarqawi had no connections with Saddam, yet Saddam treated him in the Baghdad hospital. We know that Zarqawi was in Baghdad at that time, but we can convienently ignore that fact, because it proves that Rumsfeld wasn't lying.

Saddam did not treat Zarqawi. Just because Zarqawi got treated in Bagdhad does not mean Saddam approved. That's like saying President Bush paid for Atta's flight lessons.


And Rumsfeld isn't "right" in his bias?

What is it with bias anyways. Just because someone is "biased" means they cannot possibly know the truth?

 

[Red Stranger]

This is not addressed to any posts above. I just wanted to clarify something about Rumsfeld. He's not a warhawk. In fact he was very outspoken about Vietnam.

 

[The Yankee]

The questioner was so far left in his bias that there is no way to speak and have him listen. Oh Zarqawi had no connections with Saddam, yet Saddam treated him in the Baghdad hospital. We know that Zarqawi was in Baghdad at that time, but we can convienently ignore that fact, because it proves that Rumsfeld wasn't lying.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the whole WMD question and quote game.

And I don't remember Zarqawi being that much of a concern until even a while later, certainly after "Mission Accomplished." I do remember that the "connection" was supposed to be that Ansar al-Islam was operating in the Kurdistan area on the border between Iraq and Iran.

For Zarqawi, have we proven that Hussein supported him? Or was he a convenient exile (from Jordan, IIRC)? If all he did was go to a hospital though, then we might as well say that every time a terrorist does something in a country, then that country must be supporting him.

 

[Neomega]

This is not addressed to any posts above. I just wanted to clarify something about Rumsfeld. He's not a warhawk. In fact he was very outspoken about Vietnam.

Until he became secretary of Defense for the Ford administration. He is a warhawk now.

 

[Insayn]

Rumsfeld owned the guy. The only question he answered was "why did you lie?"; which he answered "I didn't lie".

This is a perfect example of how politicians, especially old ones like rummy, can own in an ORAL "disruption" like what we have here.
I don't think security was removing the guy from the room. My impression from the video was that he began to walk out at the first hint of rummys walk around ignoring the questions.
All he did was change the subject. The guy was walking out and denying rummy the satisfaction; then rummy does a brilliant reverse while in a corner and turns the tables and retorts with a question about al-zawahri in baghdad. Which has nothing to do with the original question. Then this young journalist on the fly continues to play rummys game; now on rummys terms.Then proceeds to be beaten thoroughly within seconds.
It doesn't matter who is right. Rummy is a professional liar.