If he had meant suspected sites, I can't believe he would say "We know where they are" Those words are clear in their meaning, and looking at the context, it still seems he is pushing the idea that the administratio knows that Iraq has WMD. As for his memory, in the same conference he mentioned perfectly clearly a New York times article or headline from 5 years ago. So I don't think faulty memory is a legitimate excuse in this case. He obvioiusly wishes he hadn't said what he said, now, and may have rationalized to himself that he wasn't lying. But in the end he is running away from his own words. Remember in the conference where this was asked, Rumsfeld's first statement was that he never said that. The words are clear he did in fact say, "We know where they are" Yet he claimed he never said that.
Sorry but I don't think its as clear as you want it to be. If he said 'we know where they are. the suspected sites are in large geographic area around tirkrit' then 'we know where they are' by itself is out of context. I didn't say he had faulty memory. Actually I said I was suprised he remembered what he was talking about in the interview at all. My point is that he remembered what he was talking about - suspected sites. To assert that he clearly remembered the whole transcript verbatim is silly. Plus Rumsfeld starts and stops a lot when he's being interviewed or at the podium. You've seen it over and over again if you've watched him. So if there is any controversy over the opening line - it only makes sense to defer to the rest of the answer - where he clarifies exactly what he was talking about. Yes, but that's a false test. For that to be a 'lie' then he had to have remembered the interview verbatim. That's why my explanation makes more sense. He remembers talking about suspected sites - which he clearly does after the intial statement you're pointing to.
See, this is the kind of thing they've been doing from the beginning... make a statement that leads most folks to believe a fact is a fact, but when they're called on the lie, they can just say, "Oh no, I was just speculating." Like the connection between Saddam and 9-11, like tubes, like trailers, like WMDs, like mushroom clouds, like Syria, like reconstruction, like honesty in government, like Niger, like diplomacy. Just enough wiggle room for them to delude themselves and their supporters with a pathetic plausible deniability argument.
I'm not saying there is no validity to that inference but it is all just inference and in light of the fact that he makes statements with such absolute certainty it comes off as spin. Whether he meant to say "suspected" or not in the realm of public relations doesn't matter that much. Its like "that depends on what "is" is." Yes Clinton was technically correct but it just looks bad.
It doesn't matter how large of area he was talking about. He said he knew where they were and named an area. The fact that the area is not a specific address but a 'large' are doesn't matter. His meaning was that he knew they were there. The truth is he didn't know that they were there. I think the impression he was giving on ABC wasn't that he suspected some sites of having WMD. But the administration knew where the WMD's were, and that they were there, so we better get rid of them. I also don't think it is a false test. He remembered the headline verbatim. why wouldn't he remember his own words verbatim, or claim he wasn't sure as you mentioned earlier and mention referring to a transcript. Rather than do that he claimed that he never said something he did say. The fact that he then tries to claim he said 'suspected sites' doesn't change the first half of his lie yesterday which was 'I never said that.' So even if the 'suspected sites' part is somehow what he was talking about, he still lied.
Supporters are 'In Denial' NEW YORK USA Today founder Al Neuharth, once known for his generally Republican views, appears to have seen enough of President Bush. In his column today for USA Today, he once again hits the Iraq war (he is one of the few mainstream journalists to favor a quick withdrawal), then notes the presient's approval rating having plunged from 71% to 34% in the Gallup poll since 2003. "How low can Bush's approval rating go? My hunch is it's at or near the bottom," he suggests. "That 34% represents mostly unshakeable far-right wingers. Like Bush, Vice President Cheney and company, they are in denial. "What happened to the 37% who have switched from pro-Bush to anti-Bush? They finally realized they were suckered by Bush and his buddies back then about Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction, his tie to terrorists and his threat to the USA." http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002463304
Now your are talking about what he meant contrary to what his answer was in context, and you are talking about the 'impression' he gave instead of what his answer was in context. Look, if he remembered talking about suspected sites with GS - and then someone says - you said "we know where they are" - and he responds 'i didn't say that, I said we knew where the suspected sites were' - its a pretty harsh judgement to call that a lie. Any mistep or misspeak becomes a lie which is too much IMO. I'm not a Bush supporter - you do a disservice to the discussion and inquiry happening in the D&D when you shrug off opinions other than your own.
Make McGovern a journalist instead of the Judith Millers and other apologists. Isn't the country owed some truth and fact checking? Finally questioning by someone who is sharp and knows the facts as to what has been said , so he cannot be bs'ed. Imagine if the hapless Dubya had been questioned like that.
That 34% represents fully <b>one-third</b> of the country. That's <b>not</b> the <b>far</b> right wing. More mobism.
Certainly. But since I'm constantly accused of being the parse-king you might think I could recognize it when I see it.
The used the impression he gave during the interview with Stephanopolis because it was his words and the context that gave that impression. Then if he didn't lie he shouldn't have said that he didn't say it. he should have said I don't remember saying that, or I don't think those were my exact words or something along that nature. He definitively said he never said it. To believe he didn't lie, we have to believe that the audio glitch covers the word 'suspected', we have to believe that he could remember a NYT headline clearly from 2001, but couldn't remember his own words from 2002 clearly. You are asking for a huge stretch to cut him some slack.
Hot damn! Is this one of those non-response responses? Since when is a full-third the far right of any group? Can you answer the question?
I used his words that provided context for the original statement. That's the difference. The rest of the answer in the interview provide the basis for my version. Your version is pulled from thin air. Yes, it would have been much clearer if he'd said 'I don't remember saying that.' But again put it in context. Go back to exactly how the confrontation happened. McGovern asks the question - he says 'I didn't say that, I was talking about suspected sites.' McGovern says the parsed quote 'we know where they are' - then Rumsfeld stops, he's thinking back - security moves to take McGovern out - Rumsfeld says 'no wait - let him stay.' He's obviously trying to figure out the discrepancy. I think that leads credibility to my interpretation of what happened. In context the quote is referring to suspected sites - out of context it stops Rumsfeld because he doesn't recall claiming that. No, you just have to look at the rest of his answer after 'we know where they are.' The rest of the answer is all talking about suspected sites. Your version doesn't make any sense. In your version he says 'we know where they are. There may not be anything there. We don't know yet.' Those three parts of the answer obviously don't jive. C'mon FB. He could easily have been struck by a headline that stuck in his mind - that's far from proving he has a photographic memory and remembers his exact answer verbatim from an interview several years ago. I just think declaring he obviously was caught in a bold faced lie is a stretch.
