Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« Teasing the Truth Out of Dwigh... | Histrionic Mom vs. Fall Out Bo... »

Friday, May 5, 2006

Have You No Sense of Decency, Sir?

Posted by on May 5 at 9:55 AM

WIth the press corps completely uninterested in calling out the Bush administration on even their most blatant hypocrisies and lies, it’s left to the general public (and comedians) to speak truth to power.

A former CIA analyst takes on Rumsfeld in Atlanta last night…

QUESTION: Why did you lie to get us into a war that caused these kind of casualties and was not necessary?

RUMSFELD: Well, first of all, I haven’t lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn’t lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence Agency people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the United Nations. The president spent weeks and weeks with the Central Intelligence people and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I’m not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion. It appears that there were not weapons of mass destruction there.

QUESTION: You said you knew where they were.

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

QUESTION: 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.

QUESTION: This is America.

RUMSFELD: You’re getting plenty of play, sir.

QUESTION: I’d just like an honest answer.

RUMSFELD: I’m giving it to you.

QUESTION: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq.

RUMSFELD: Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

QUESTION: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That’s also…

RUMSFELD: He was also in Baghdad.

QUESTION: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

(PROTESTER INTERRUPTS)

RUMSFELD: Let me give you an example.

It’s easy for you to make a charge, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day, when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? Because they liked the style?

They honestly believed that there were chemical weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

QUESTION: That’s what we call a non sequitur. It doesn’t matter what the troops believe; it matters what you believe.

MODERATOR: I think, Mr. Secretary, the debate is over. We have other questions, courtesy to the audience.

More details here and here.

Questioners from the other side of the political spectrum had a few tough questions for the Secretary as well. One asked, “what happened in your childhood to make you the man you are today? This might help some parents, because you’re a great man.”

La la la.


CommentsRSS icon

Isn't it great that if you ask a bush administration official a valid question, the MSM reports you as a "hostile protestor" even if you are a former CIA analyst?

I would take being labeled by the GW BUSH admin a "hostile protestor" for that very reason as a badge of honor.

I would also take being given a diminutive nickname by GW BUSH admin as a "hostile act.

The smoke screen our "Liberal Media" are providing with Colbert and now this CIA guy serves to divert attention from the real issues behind both men's statements. It's not about what they're saying, it's about who the men are and why their message is failing. Instead of Colbert being "rude" and this guy being a "protester", the focus needs to be on the issues causing these men to speak out.

Rumsfeld's "Truthiness" gets called out by a former CIA analysist and all the right can say is he's a "hostile protestor"?

Jesus, if Uncle fucking Sam stood up and asked that same question they'd call him an unpatriotic, agressive insurgent.

you think thats bad Look at the media BS of Al Jazeer. Talk about lies and mistruths. In war everybodies full of propaganda. Sit back and enjoy the fireworks, nothin you can do will change the fact that this war was inevetable. Where were you all when we bombed the hell out of the Serbs because of the lie that 1,000s of muslims were being raped and slaughtered. It turned out it was only 600 and all on scattered heresay. But oh yeah Clinton was the man. He can Order Bombs and War cause hes a democrat. Republicans can't go to war cause they stupid. Don't blame the Pres. He just got Bad intelligence from the lackies. Go after them.

He got bad intelligence which he knew was bad and he still stood behind it as absolute truth. So there's honor in that?

Wow.

it's not that they're liars - well, ok, they are - it's that it's been five years of lies and they still haven't even had a trial for people they've been torturing, that we don't even know are guilty.

ok, that plus the massive deficit and stupid fake war in iraq thing.

All right. If all the same cards had played out if Bush didn't win the election what would Kerry have done that would have appesaed you all. And don't tell me the terroist wouldn't have attacked WTC. What do you believe the world would be like in America?
I'm sure that crackerjack Kerry would of Attacked Afghanistan much more than Iraq, but you anti war snubs would still be freakin out cause no war to you is just. So whats going to change in 2008 when Pres. Bush retires. Every Presidents boosted reasons to go to war. Ain't nothin going to change that.

it doesn't matter who is in power, if they fuck up, the people should take them the task. whether it is kerry, bush, dem or republican.

blind faith is not sign of patriotism.

So you're saying that because every President does it we should just accept lies and manipulation and war as inevitable?

Gee.

The question is not, 'Could someone else have done better?' but 'Could this president have done better?' 'Has this president misrepresented his views and the information he received to force a violent, ugly war?'

You can't hold a person guilty of the crimes another person might have committed, but you sure as hell can, and you sure as hell *ought* to hold him guilty of the crimes he *did* committ. Or, if you don't like the litigious sound of that sentence, judge the sinner on his sins, not those of the culture.

I'm just sick of rats jumping a sinking ship. Its mutiny mutiny mutiny all the time frome all yous people ,but you nver have any Loyalty to begin with. So yes people should be held accountable, but I am not going to bring down my Shogun at a time of war. Its the Samurai code man ,thats all I'm saying.

Its people like you why Kingdoms and Nations have fallen to dust. We have no support for the structure of our nation. we pull and tear it apart from the inside before the enemy has even a taste. In the Army we called that Buddyfuckers.

Ah, yes, let's look to the Shogunate as a shining example of civil engineering. Let us number all the ways that Japan as a nation prospered and the roads were made safer for women and children, the beer made better, and the elderly warmer at night while under the benign and unswervingly loyal custodianship of the Shoguns.

When a leader misuses his position for ends that harm the nation, that is a leader we are better off without. What happens to military leaders on the ground who routinely march their units into impossible situations? Where does the word 'frag' come from?

Yeah, three cheers for the kingdom of Bush! May he reign a thousand years. . . . .

How 'bout a little loyalty to the constitution there, Buddy . . . . .

I'm not saying this is *necessarily* a good indication of the cogency of their arguments, but has anyone else noticed that the wingnuts in here can't FUCKING SPEAK ENGLISH?

Pablo, your arguments are quite insane. We're talking about what's actually happening ("reality") not what might have happened had someone else been in charge ("fantasy"). And the notion that citizens should blindly obey their leaders in wartime or at any time is simply too ridiculous and terrifying to be addressed.

Would have, not would of.

When the conservative freakin Cato Institute is calling out Bush for subverting the Constitution, Pablo, you might want to rethink your kneejerk defense of this corrupt president.

I guess I put too many links in a post I tried to add to this thread. So here's one, a good interview of Ray McGovern, the guy quoted in the post that started this conversation.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/05/1432203

Pablo,

Wow, you're really an idiot, aren't you?

It's people like YOU that caused the fall of the Roman Empire...

Chimpy McFlightsuit = Nero.

oh, hey, at least ONE staffer at the Washington Post found Colbert funny, the woman who does the TV column.

All the rest of those deadenders insist it wasn't funny. Probably because they were the target.

oh, and Pablo, patriotism is based on "My country right or wrong ...", but you forgot the ending "... if right then till my last breath, if wrong then let it fall."

I would just like to point out that Pablo here is giving more evidence for my theory about the connection between kooky right-wing views and possibly-Germanically-inspired but maybe just random Capitalization of Proper Nouns in inappropriate Places. Very Interesting, Wouldn't You Say? I think it's Caused by Sparks going off in the Brain...

Fake war my ass when bullets and rpgs and Ieds are going off everyday. People are fighting and dieing everyday and you going to call it fake. give me Break.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).