Reuters

May 4, 2006 — By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced tough questions and hecklers during a stormy speech in Atlanta on Thursday, with a former CIA analyst accusing him of lying his way into the Iraq war.

Rumsfeld, an unyielding defender of the war, denied lying. He told an audience at the Southern Center for International Studies that the Bush administration gave an "honest opinion" that prewar Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

"I would like to ask you to be upfront with the American people. Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties? Why?" asked audience member Ray McGovern, who had a 27-year career as a CIA analyst.

"Well, first of all, I haven't lied," Rumsfeld said.

One woman whose son was a U.S. soldier killed in the war asked if the Pentagon was making sure American troops were better equipped for combat. "You bet," Rumsfeld said. "And I'm so sorry about your son."

There have been 2,411 U.S. military deaths in the war, with 17,874 troops wounded in combat, the Pentagon said on Thursday. Opinion polls show U.S. public support for the war declining. President George W. Bush recently voiced strong support for Rumsfeld after a handful of retired generals demanded his ouster, accusing him of strategic blunders in Iraq and ignoring military advice.

Rumsfeld, whose speech focused on U.S. military alliances worldwide, was interrupted briefly by hecklers, including one clutching a sign that read: "Guilty! of war crimes."

McGovern pressed Rumsfeld about the case for war made by the administration before the March 2003 invasion.

"I'm not in the intelligence business," Rumsfeld said about U.S. assertions that now-deposed President Saddam Hussein possessed chemical and biological weapons and was seeking nuclear arms.

Rumsfeld said then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations detailing U.S. beliefs about Iraqi arms, had "spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate."

Rumsfeld said Bush, who made the threat posed by Iraq's weapons his main justification for war, also "spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people" before making his case to the American people.

"They gave the world their honest opinion," Rumsfeld added. "It appears that there were no weapons of mass destruction."

'I DID NOT'

McGovern shot back, "You said you knew where they were," referring to the Iraqi weapons.

"I did not," Rumsfeld retorted. "I said I knew where suspect sites were."

"You said you know where they were, near Tikrit, near Baghdad, and north, east, south and west of there. Those are your words," McGovern shot back.

"I'd just like an honest answer," McGovern added. "We're talking about lies," also mentioning the administration's assertions of prewar ties between Iraq and al Qaeda.

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.

"Not at all," Rumsfeld responded, according to a Pentagon transcript of the interview.

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat," Rumsfeld stated.

Rumsfeld on January 20, 2003, said Saddam's government had "large, unaccounted for stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, including VX, sarin, mustard gas, anthrax, botulism, and possibly smallpox," as well as "an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons."

Other audience members in Atlanta were gentler. One asked about "what happened in your childhood to make you the man you are today? This might help some parents, because you're a great man." Rumsfeld noted that "my mom was a school teacher and my dad read history voraciously."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1924653&page=1

He showed each case of Rumsfeld denying a statement and then showed the exact statement, when and where it was said.

There's no doubt left that Rumsfeld is a liar.

Reuters

May 4, 2006 — By Will Dunham

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced tough questions and hecklers during a stormy speech in Atlanta on Thursday....

Wow.

He finally had to face an audience that was NOT 100% comprised of sycophantic lapdogs who swallow all his ridiculous lies without question....?!?!?!

One asked (Rumsfeld) -- "What happened in your childhood to make you the man you are today?"

Given that the Hitler Youth program was disbanded in the 1940's, I've been curious about that myself.

Several of the hecklers were women who were not only escorted out but were man-handled pretty good by the neocon, chickenhawk security goons.

Real tough guys those republicans.

Real tough guys those republicans.

Well, what else would you expect from a faction who'd purposely bomb a wedding party?

Heres a video of him LYING while being questioned (The idiot)

http://images1.americanprogress.org/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/rum.320.240.mov

Did you know that American street gangs are taking root in Iraq?
We really are exporting American values!
Let's set up a draft just for these domestic terrorists so we don't have to keep fighting them over here!

He finally had to face an audience that was NOT 100% comprised of sycophantic lapdogs who swallow all his ridiculous lies without question....?!?!?!I'm sure these people all got high fives at their dorms and frats, but what did it prove?

Helen Thomas Syndrome: Acting rude or disrespectful because you have a sympathetic audience and you know the person you're addressing will not treat you similarly.

I didn't like the prior administration, but I felt there was a better sense of decorum when in their presence.

Helen Thomas Syndrome: Acting rude or disrespectful because you have a sympathetic audience and you know the person you're addressing will not treat you similarly.respect is given until the person proves they are unworthy of such. Somehow you think that people should respect Ryumfeld merely because of his position. To do so is the reasoning of a slave. Rumsfeld was caught lying multiple times about statements he himself made and you declare that he should be "respected"? If this asshole can't even take the responsiblity for what flies out his mouth (and consequently kills 2400 American troops and 100,000+ Iraqis) then Fuck him. He deserves no such respect. Take your pussy-ass boot-licking arguments elsewhere.

Guerilla, if nothing else, it hurts your cause. If these questions "trapped" Rumsfeld in any way, how seriously are they taken when presented in that fashion.

Not to pick on you specifically, but if you made a point and then Vile made the same point, he would have a much greater chance of actually influencing someone. You're probably proud of that in some odd way, but you have much less chance of catalyzing the big change you so desperately seek.

Guerilla, if nothing else, it hurts your cause. If these questions "trapped" Rumsfeld in any way, how seriously are they taken when presented in that fashion.Brooks at the Boston Tea Party:

"No, no, stop it! Stop it! No one will take us seriously if we dress up like indians and throw tea in the harbor! This is not the way to persuade King George! Where's the decorum?!!"

they were going to toss the guy out & Rummy told them to let him stay

Rummy is not an elected official - he doesn't have to listen to hecklers. He doesn't have to talk to the press or anybody for that matter.I don't like Rummy one bit, but I don't like ignorant assholes either who think they can be smart by acting like an ignorant ass.

Rummy is not an elected official - he doesn't have to listen to hecklers.But elected officials do? I don't know why you make this distinction. He's a public official and a public person. If he doesn't want to be heckled he can choose to not appear in public.I don't like Rummy one bit, but I don't like ignorant assholes either who think they can be smart by acting like an ignorant ass.Call him an asshole if you like, but ignorant? No. His facts were spot on the money. If the media in this country had done their jobs these past five years there wouldn't be any need for heckling. But if that's what it takes to get the truth printed these days then I'm all for it.

Helen Thomas Syndrome: Acting rude or disrespectful because you have a sympathetic audience and you know the person you're addressing will not treat you similarly.

Oh how i'd LOVE to hear your example of Helen Thomas being rude and/or disrespectful of some politician.

No doubt, for a RightWing Kool-Aid drinker, asking a pointed question of a politician concerning their actions is EXTREMELY "rude".

I didn't like the prior administration, but I felt there was a better sense of decorum when in their presence.

Right.

Well, except for the fact that the entire mainstream Media establishment in the US went after him with every ounce of energy in their bodies over his having had [they suspected] a consensual sexual affair, spreading every sort of half-truth, lie and innuendo known to man in order to fan the flames and keep the rumor-mongering going full blast.

I personally despised Clinton.......but I could not believe it as I watched the Press go after him like a pack of starving wolves after a deer with its throat cut.

Bush senior kept a mistress for 10 times as long a period as Clinton was involved with Monica Lewinski, with the White House Press Corps steadfastly REFUSING to pursue the matter or to ask him about it publicly.

_________________________________________

"Liberal" Media my fucking ass.

Well, except for the fact that the entire mainstream Media establishment in the US went after him The media loved the Lewinski story because it was easy to understand and it was about sex.
I said that the media was more respectful "in their presence". You didn't have garbage like this guy asking these sensational questions.

And will any media outlet refer to this guy as "Ray McGovern - prolific and well know anti-war activist". Probably not.

Brooks at the Boston Tea Party:

"No, no, stop it! Stop it! No one will take us seriously if we dress up like indians and throw tea in the harbor! This is not the way to persuade King George! Where's the decorum?!!"That's a good point if you think a press conference is supposed to resemble larceny, criminal mischief and vandalism. In other words, I don't get it.

In other words, I don't get it.Then I'll be blunt: if the Founding Fathers had the same sense of 'decorum' as you, we'd still be colonies of Great Britain. No doubt that at the time of the Boston Tea Party there were some who argued that it would 'hurt the cause', just as many told Asa Philip Randolph that being uppity would 'hurt the cause' of ending segregation.

You're a reactionary, Brooks. You don't like it when people 'make waves'. You think that publicly confronting Rumsfeld with the truth is distasteful, that it lacks 'decorum'. Never mind that Rumsfeld is a proven liar and that the media studiously ignores this fact, your disdain is reserved for the man who compels the media to report the truth. That is truly pathetic.

were I come from,respect is earned not given,and as I would imagine the women evicted from the forum were American Citizens what about 'Freedom of Speech',and isnt there a term 'Government accountability'.

they were going to toss the guy out & Rummy told them to let him stay

Rummy is not an elected official - he doesn't have to listen to hecklers. He doesn't have to talk to the press or anybody for that matter.I don't like Rummy one bit, but I don't like ignorant assholes either who think they can be smart by acting like an ignorant ass.

No one should ever be tossed for excersing their 1st ammendment rights. PERIOD.

If this asshole can't even take the responsiblity for what flies out his mouth (and consequently kills 2400 American troops and 100,000+ Iraqis) then Fuck him. He deserves no such respect. Take your pussy-ass boot-licking arguments elsewhere..

I could not agree more.

I find it utterly sickening that in America (as so starkly evidenced here within the last few posts) a large segment of the populace is so unbelievably sycophantic and so willfully blind that they will CASTIGATE and condemn a person who finally!, at long godddamned last, had the courage to ASK these lying motherfuckers in the Bush Administration WHY they lied to drag us into a war.

ASKING DONALD RUMSFELD WHY HE LIED IS NOT "disrespectful"!!!!! ......not in the slightest!!!!.....it is the DUTY of us as citizens to QUESTION OUR GOVERNMENT when they ARE caught --as Rumsfeld and his band of co-conspirators in the Bush Administration ARE at this very moment caught-- in so MANY incredible and despicable and harmful LIES!!!

And for ANY human being in this country to actually condemn the courageous citizen that was asking these dishonest sons-of-bitches to explain their actions, while DEFENDING the very LYING bastards (and Rumsfeld is one of the chief perpetrators, and he is SO goddamned brash and arrogant that he LIED in the answer he gave to the person, by telling him that --"Colin Powell didn't lie"-- when the entire world now knows and is fully aware that Powell lied thru his teeth) who PERPETRATED the godddamned war is SICKENING!!!!!!!!

Well if my son had fell in Iraq,by fuck he and George would hear me,everyday til they locked me up..Freethinker, how you do the 'red',I like that...

Well if my son had fell in Iraq,by fuck he and George would hear me,everyday til they locked me up..Freethinker, how you do the 'red',I like that...

Preceed the words with <color=red> and end with </color> ....

...but use square brackets "[" and "]" instead of < and >.

Thanx mate.

I seriously don't understand why making Rumsfeld answer hardball questions is somehow lacking in decorum. I suspect that if the same treatment had been given to members of the Clinton Administration, Brooks would be all for it.

Going by even 1950s standards of politics, that panel was rather mild. People used to throw pies at politicians! And Brooks crys about a few difficult questions?

Wow.

He finally had to face an audience that was NOT 100% comprised of sycophantic lapdogs who swallow all his ridiculous lies without question....?!?!?!



Given that the Hitler Youth program was disbanded in the 1940's, I've been curious about that myself.


Wow.....

Hillary Clintax will rarely speak in front of a group who is not her lapdogs.

Well if my son had fell in Iraq,by fuck he and George would hear me,everyday til they locked me up..Freethinker, how you do the 'red',I like that...

Many many many parents have lost children in Iraq, and in other wars. Most of them do not act like the lefts lapdog Sheehan.

Hillary Clintax will rarely speak in front of a group who is not her lapdogs.Is there a point to this? Bush is the subject, not Clinton.
Most of them do not act like the lefts lapdog Sheehan.
Once again, so?

Its about time Americans stood up and were counted,remember,the only people in the world these guys have to answer to is you,The American Public.So get out there and confront these guys,who are dragging your country down,and costing US lives,money and creditability on a daily basis...

Its about time Americans stood up and were counted,remember,the only people in the world these guys have to answer to is you,The American Public.So get out there and confront these guys,who are dragging your country down,and costing US lives,money and creditability on a daily basis...
In the grand scheme of things, the only real time they answer to us is around elections. There are some things you could petition or protest for, call your congressman, hold town meetings, etc. But the majority of the public isn't in tune with the news or reasonable enough to make good decisions. There is little to be done on things such as preventing the Iraq War from going underway, and so on. Power to the people, indeed.

Many many many parents have lost children in Iraq, and in other wars. Most of them do not act like.... (Cindy Sheehan).

Sadly, that is true.

I wish they all WOULD take it as seriously as Cindy Sheehan, and that they would ALL demand that the smirking goddamned imbecile in the White House answer the simple question ------"What noble cause did my son die for in Iraq?"

Maybe Bush would be truthful for once, and tell them --"Well, you see, my friends and I are in the oil business, and we like siphoning billions upon billions of dollars out of the US Treasury, so what we did was.......""

Just to be clear, what is the lie in this instance?

Just to be clear, what is the lie in this instance?Try reading the first post in the thread. If that doesn't help then maybe you should look into some remedial reading classes.

Just to be clear, what is the lie in this instance?

That they "knew" that Iraq possessed many tons of WMDs, and that they "knew" (as Rumsfeld emphatically stated) exactly where they were in Iraq.

Rumsfled-- the dishonest SOB-- even mangaed to LIE about it TWICE.

First he claimed they "knew" exactly where the WMDs were, and THEN he later lied and said that he hadn't made that ststement.

(p.s.-- I sincerely hope that the sycophantic fucks who (as is heard onthe video) applauded this despicable piece-of-human-offal Donald Rumsfled as he fucking LIED (in his claiming that he had not lied previously!!) are never again allowed in a press conference.)

Someone remind Don that being Defense Secretary doesn't mean he should spend most of his time defending himself.
Maybe they should call him the Indefensible Sec'y.

Do we really have to rehash the definition of a lie?

Apparently so. According to Merriam to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

Rumsfeld statements to most sane people is a statement of his beliefs. In this case they were beleifs based on the 'intelligence' available. It's reasonable to argue the merits of the 'intelligence' but to suggest that Rumsfeld 'knew' the intelligence was inaccurate stretches credulity. (Do you have some proof you'd care to offer?)

As to his statement as to the whereabouts of said wmd mcgovern and the press only offer a fragment of his statement. The rest of the statement was ....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.


http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html

So he offers a statement as to his beliefs based on the intelligence with the caveat that trucks have since been to the area and may have removed the evidence.

If out of that you want to promulgate the notion that he lied then at least be honest enough to offer the entire statement for people to make that determination. To offer anything less is disingenuous.

Obviously seeing there was NO WMDs in the first place,his lies upon lies is all just bullshit.

This might be a stretch to understand but you need to offer proof that he/they knew there were no wmd in order for it to be a lie.

Mere assertions do not constitute proof.

Well if its a case first time round,that Rumsfeld was briefed and then made the tv statements,thats one thing,but he should have confirmed before going on tv and making educated guesses,how do you justify the second tv appearance which contradicted the first,he had to be lying on at least one occasion,my suspicions are that The Bush Admin,were going to war,and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American People,you guys must have rules for this.

You can legitimately make the case that he should have been more cautious, especially given that capturing Tikrit and the other areas was still a week or two away at that point in time.
Hammering someone as a liar for a statement they made three years ago (i'll bet we could catch a lot of people on that one), a statement that includes a caveat, seems a bit of a stretch.

Not all of my lies result in pointless, bloody wars.

Waldo,thats fine for guys like you and me,but Don Rumsfeld is a senior member of White House staff,hes fed more information in a day,than we get in a year,the words 'smokescreen',come to mind

Hi Nap,lets hear it..

You illustrate my point. He gets more in a day then we do in a year and people expect him to remember precisely what he said three years (or a thousand years to use your example) ago?

Nap, as i said earlier rhetoric is not an argument or proof.

If my argument is rhetoric, then so is your's.

Waldo,Rumsfeld is briefed before he ever goes on tv,from half a dozen advisers,if he wasnt lying,then the Dept of Defence,fed him false information,to justify the war,which is more alarming.

Actually not. I've provided a ratiocination as to my opinion. You've only offered a statement.

He gets more in a day then we do in a year and people expect him to remember precisely what he said three years (or a thousand years to use your example) ago?

You missed it entirely. This is not about today looking back on the past. The charge is that the Administration lied us into a war. He had a surfeit of intelligence, both foreign and domestic, intelligence that clearly stated that Saddam posed no threat, there were no weapons of mass destruction. You choose to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt when you say that he truly believed that Saddam posed a threat. I call bullshit. He had the intelligence. He had the information. He simply cherry-picked every little bit of intelligence he had, no matter the overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary, to push his agenda of war.

my suspicions are that The Bush Admin,were going to war,and pulled the wool over the eyes of the American People,...

There is no *suspicion* involved......the motherfuckers FLAT OUT STATED their firm intention to FIX the intelligence and facts AROUND the policy!!

It is stated IN WRITING.

Actually not. I've provided a ratiocination as to my opinion. You've only offered a statement.

What are you trying to sound smart? "Ooh, I can use a word with 13 letters in it!" No, you've offered no "rationcination." Just pointless apologetics. My statement was a genuine reaction to yours. They exist on the same level. You calling it rhetoric only serves to prove how averse you are to looking at the truth. Cheney's statements deliberately led us into war.

What does 'rationcination'mean..

What does 'rationcination'mean..

A reasoned conclusion.

Not that he GAVE one, but........................

What are you trying to sound smart? "Ooh, I can use a word with 13 letters in it!" No, you've offered no "rationcination." Just pointless apologetics. My statement was a genuine reaction to yours. They exist on the same level. You calling it rhetoric only serves to prove how averse you are to looking at the truth. Cheney's statements deliberately led us into war.

I'm glad you've got a reaction, emotion is always substantive or not. I'd prefer some type of rational thought.
Unless you can offer some proof as to the veracity of your statement it will stand as mere rhetoric.

What cheyney has to do with what rumsfeld said is a bit beyond me but in the fevered swamp of the lunatic left i'm sure it makes some kind of sense.

According to Merriamto make an untrue statement with intent to deceiveHere's how Merriam's Online defines 'lie':

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

Funny how you ignored the second definition and then went on to castigate McGovern for not quoting Rumsfeld at length. So what would you prefer to be called, intellectually dishonest or just a plain old hypocrite?

I'm glad you've got a reaction, emotion is always substantive or not. I'd prefer some type of rational thought.

Simply because it was a reaction doesn't mean it was an emotional one. There's more than one type. Instead of complaining about what you think my answer was, why don't you examine what I wrote?

Unless you can offer some proof as to the veracity of your statement it will stand as mere rhetoric.

Rumsfeld's statements led us into war. That is undisputable.

Rumsfeld statements to most sane people is a statement of his beliefs. In this case they were beleifs based on the 'intelligence' available.

That's false.

There was an incredible amount of intelligence being given to Rumsfeld and Bush that pointed to Iraq NOT having any remaining stockpiles of WMDs of any consequence.

The analysts were telling him and the Bush people (who had, please keep in mind, already STATED their intention to LIE about it!) that Saddam's wmds had long ago gone out of date.