I think the rest of his words lend the context to him saying 'he knew where they were.' This is from the transcript. Here his statement implies his certainty about there being WMD's there. They weren't dispersed in that area, but his next statement he then metions that they know where they are. So his context is that he knows where they aren't but implies that they are in Iraq, and then follows that up with telling George Stephanopolis that they know where they are. To me the context clearly shows that he is certain that there are WMD's in Iraq(as opposed to suspected sites of WMD's) and that the U.S. govt. knows where they are. Then after the quote that started the row, he claims they know how many sites there are. Here are Rumsfeld's words I don't know how those words suport that Rumsfeld meant suspected sites. To me his words and context clearly show that was certain about them, or at least claimed to be at the time.
Where were these guys back in 2004? I can understand the gloating over GW Bush's low poll numbers but he's still president and all we've got now is the same GW Bush and co. just lame ducks. Personally I find the poll numbers somewhat annoying since it shows me that those people who pushed Bush over the top in 2004 were pretty much suckered into their vote and that the Democrats and Kerry were too weak to get past that.
I put the full answer in the post above. I agree that he believed there were WMDs in Iraq - that he was 'certain' there were WMDs somewhere. Put the rest of the answer on the pieces you pulled out and he clearly says he doesn't know if there is anything there - or where it is. He even talks about trucks coming and maybe having moved the WMDs. Your version doesn't make any sense unless you leave part of his answer out.
It shows how inept the Democratic machine is when the politics get rough and tumble. They need to get a serious ass kicking operator in charge over there.
At best his own answer at the time may have been contradictory. But he said that he doesn't know about those particular sites. That makes more sense than him saying 'We know where they are' and then later saying but we don't know where they are. He comments on the number of them, gives locations of where they are, and says the words 'we know where they are'. He then talks about specific sites in the area of Answar al Islam. As far as those sites are concerned he may have had only suspicions regarding them, but WMD's in general he states, and the context helps support the idea that he claimed he knew where they were. The Federal news service in Washington DC fills in the audio glitch with the word criminal, and not suspected. You may claim, that he didn't know for sure about some of the sites, but context and his words show that he did claim to know about sites near Tikrit and Baghdad. At the very least I've showed context which supports what I saw and doesn't jibe with your claim that I took my meaning of the context out of thin air.
Yes, he knew there were sites. The context doesn't show that he said there were for sure WMD at those sites - it shows the opposite - that he suspected they were but 'they could be gone.'
