Ownage!!!!!!!! If i was a family member of a soldier killed in Iraq, I would demand justice from these liars. They are quick to bring in "men and women serving in the United States Army" to sound patriotic and serve their agenda. But at the same time, its THEIR LIES that gets those same "men and women" killed. Sheesh....
You are missing my point... Griffin shot at his girlfriend about two years after all the "giddiness" about drafting him had washed over us all. We thought we knew something (that no one else did) about him. We paid a high price (that no one else would) for that claim. Did we lie? Or were there some mis-judgements? That the Administration "lies" is Point One on a one point Democratic talking point list.
duh...... well....... I uhhhhhhhhhhhh............. tawt I taw a WMD..... The Liars Club lives on. Can someone give him a BJ so we can impeach his ass?
A member in the bush cabinet could stab a baby in public and you can guarantee the typical crew here would argue that it was self defense or that the baby was a future hitler.
I don't see how his recent answer is still justified by anything you said. Audio glitch? That is given him a lot of credit. 'Known' would also fit there, but I am not going to accuse him of saying that. What we do know he said was, "We know where they are" At the recent Q and A he claims he never said that.
Yeah, letting one person voice their views and not get arrested or kicked out of the event in 4 years is really showing em huh? As said before, some people around here would defend bush if he shot his mother. On second thought, I guess if it came to that, I'd have some sympathy for him too.
How is anything i said being hypocritical? That's certainly the way the questioner framed it, and the .org's have cut the transcript. Look at the actual transcript and its far from clear. The context could fairly easily back up his version, that he was talking about suspected sites. Wow, way to trivialize those with opinions other than your own. Some of us are baby killer apologists. The 'audio glitch' is what the original transcript says. That's because you could easily be taking the statement out of context. If he was talking about suspected sites, had he in fact said suspected sites, then the line 'We know where they are' is out of context. I know, I know - some of you will be incredulous and say - how can that be out of context? Look at the full transcript - its the last part of the interview and it should be pretty clear that he is talking about suspected sites. As for the utterance that he never said 'we know where they are' - you're talking about something said in an interview years ago. I think its not too unlikely he remembers the jist of the interview - which in context he talks about suspected sites - not his exact words. Considering how many of you get in a tizzy over 'parsing' of sentences on the bbs, its slightly ironic that you declare Rumsfeld a liar over one out of context sentence. C'mon. It is certainly counter to the stereotype of administration officials. Security was moving in on McGovern after he put Rumsfeld on the spot. You don't have to love Rumsfeld but in light of how low the rest of the administration is I think you should give him credit for not ducking the question/letting security roll the dude out. I'm trying to figure out what the point of the thread is. Do you want to backslap with other posters who would vote against the administration regardless of the issue or is there supposed to be some discussion? If you automatically shrug off the discussion then what is the point?
I can tell you, giddy, that had I been President, with the resources a President has, and my advisors with the most experience in basketball told me getting Griffin was a bad idea, if we were going to go about it the way we ended up doing, I wouldn't have drafted the goofus. Keep D&D Civil.
I remember seeing a guy continuously turning to look in all four directions, but I assumed it was a Secret Service agent. Good heavens, it was our own wnes?? wnes, I had no notion that you were so connected to the Bush Administration! Keep D&D Civil.
A week and a half into the war, Rumsfeld was asked on March 30, 2003, on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos," whether he found it curious that U.S. forces had not yet found weapons of mass destruction. according to a Pentagon transcript of the interview Again, there is no ambiguity to what he said.
lol, I agree. Put the sentence in context with the rest of the answer from the interview and its clear he is talking about suspected sites. This is the full question and answer. At least put it in context - he clearly says several things in context that at least cast serious doubt on your interpretation. He says they are 'east, west, north and south.' He says there are 'dozens of sites' but that time will be needed to 'find out' what's in the sites. He says at the end that "So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know." It doesn't make any sense to interpret this as a claim that he knew exactly where WMDs were. Its the equivalent of saying 'I know exactly where the WMDs are but they may not be there.' 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. Second, the [audio glitch] facilities, there are dozens of them, it's a large geographic area. It is the -- Answar Al-Islam group has killed a lot of Kurds. They are tough. And our forces are currently in there with the Kurdish forces, cleaning the area out, tracking them down, killing them or capturing them and they will then begin the site exploitation. The idea, from your question, that you can attack that place and exploit it and find out what's there in fifteen minutes. I would also add, we saw from the air that there were dozens of trucks that went into that facility after the existence of it became public in the press and they moved things out. They dispersed them and took them away. So there may be nothing left. I don't know that. But it's way too soon to know. The exploitation is just starting.
I just watched the video of Rumsfeld and it boggles the mind why he hasn't been fired. Even if I supported the invasion I would demand that he be fired. They guy has no sense of public relations and whether he lied or not his statements and combative attempts to reinterpret them when they come back and bite him reflect very badly on the Admin. and have hampered the ability of the Admin. to get more international support in Iraq.
That sounds too much like Oliver Stone saying Nixon was talking about the Cubans in the part of the Whitehouse tapes that were erased. You're right we don't know what he said but he's saying "suspected" after the fact when he is on the hot seat so that context should be considered also.
I agree he should have been fired awhile ago. His combative style was interesting in the beginning but now is just not helpful at all. Certainly the context should be considered. I think if you look at the transcript its obvious that he was talking about suspected sites, and so his recollection of what he said was that he was talking about suspected sites. Really, think about someone querying you about something you said years ago with a one line quote removed from an interview. I'm suprised he didn't just say 'i'd have to look at the transcript to see exactly what you're talking about.'
