Comments on: Liar

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:35:46 +0000

No. The proof that he lied is right above. When passed a correction by an aide, he lied again.

By: robbo

robbo — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 05:16:26 +0000

Doc, you win. I’m perfectly willing to believe that Rumsfeld is truly incompetent. And let’s not forget that Condaleeza Rice also demonstrated a distinct lack of ability pre- and post-9/11. Can’t wait to see your crew in mass retirement come November.

By: Partisan J

Partisan J — Mon, 30 Aug 2004 02:18:03 +0000

jdw—there are NOT two sides to every story. There are two sides to SOME stories, and some other stories are either true or false. Rumsfeld’s story here is false, as is demonstrated in this very article: “After an aide slipped him a note during the news conference, however, Mr. Rumsfeld corrected himself, noting that an inquiry by three Army generals had, in fact, found ‘two or three’ cases of abuse during interrogations or the interrogations process. In fact, however, the Army inquiry found that 13 of 44 instances of abuse involved interrogations or the interrogation process, an Army spokeswoman said. The report itself explicitly describes the extent to which each abuse involved interrogations.”

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:23:52 +0000

Doc R, “he didn’t read the report” is no excuse—he should be reading the report. And certainly, if he hasn’t read the first paragraph of the Schlesinger report, he shouldn’t be making false statements about what it contains, even if those false statements reflect his beliefs. There’s a point at which there’s no moral difference between lying and producing false statements out of your ass.

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:18:54 +0000

You do realize that there is a difference between a mistake and lie, right? Even a careless mistake and a lie. Careless mistakes are bad. Lies are bad. But they are not thereby the same thing. Just wanted to make sure we are on the same page about that.

By: Doc Rampage

Doc Rampage — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 22:15:43 +0000

It seems pretty clear that Rumsfeld had not read the report and didn’t know what it said. You could have just criticised him for that and it would have had some validity. But Republican-haters just can’t let an opportunity go by to use the L-word: “LIE”. Those evil Republicans always “LIE”. One would almost be led to suspect that you have an interest in devaluing the word, making it less forceful by over-using it. Why would you want to do that?

By: norbizness

norbizness — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:04:10 +0000

The Pentagon spokesman continued: “I mean, we have a major breaking spy scandal in the Pentagon, and you’re worried about whether Rummy correctly stated the conclusions of a report? Whoops.”

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:26:13 +0000

Donald Rumsfeld, tomorrow. Excellent job. One quibble: you forgot at least one iteration each of “heavens to Betsy” and “goodness gracious me” in there.

By: DR

DR — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 15:10:42 +0000

Let me explain - there are facts and there are these reports, there are known knowns and unkown knowns, but let me say that I was telling that what was known to me. Those reports were made on my request, and I, we, have to read them and draw the appropriate conclusions. But in the mean time there will be trials, and I can't, nor do I want to interfere with these trials. So to say that these people are guilty is not only not known, but also not for me to say. So I would suggest you read those reports, and follow the way we will deal with it. Because we will deal with it. Thank you. Donald Rumsfeld, tomorrow.

By: Robin Green

Robin Green — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:42:27 +0000

Now, I’m not the Army report. I’m assuming you’re not the Army report. It is indeed fair to say that people are not identical to inanimate objects. What a remarkable observation! I infer that your point could be more directly stated as “We don’t have first-hand knowledge of what is in the army report”. Indeed – but do you think it’s fair to assume that reports from halfway-credible newspapers like the NYT did not simply invent quotations from the reports, unless proven otherwise? Don’t you think the onus is on you to show why we should be suspicious of the newspaper reports, using more data than “Well Donald Rumsfeld said otherwise and personally I believe him!” So how can we know what’s in the Army report when Donald Rumsfeld is saying one thing, and the New York Times — which I would accuse of publishing their article ON PURPOSE — is saying something else? Oh no, publishing an article on purpose! What a terrible, sinister crime to be accused of! All newspapers should publish articles by accident, as any right-thinking person well knows.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:15:03 +0000

The NYTimes surely had an agenda: they were reporting the news, like the LATimes:

The Defense Department inquiry, which examined the role of military interrogators at the prison, identified 44 separate cases of abuse, some of which were even more brutal than many of the incidents documented in the now-infamous photographs taken on Tier 1A at the compound outside Baghdad. Gen. Paul Kern, who supervised the investigation, said at a news conference Wednesday that some of the practices amounted to "torture." The report was the second from the Pentagon in two days on the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal -- and together they debunk the idea of a rogue operation by the prison's night shift and instead paint a picture of widespread abuses by many more individuals and institutions, with responsibility going all the way up the ladder to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

Perhaps there is a reality in which the U.S. did not engage in systematic abuse of Iraqi prisoners. Like you, I prefer that reality. However, it doesn't appear that that's the one in which we find ourselves at present.

By: nick paul

nick paul — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 08:13:37 +0000

“so naturally” Rumsfeld lied and the NYT’s engaged in journalism.

By: SixFootPole

SixFootPole — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 07:54:04 +0000

Why doesn’t someone make an issue of the commandment getting broken here? These blasted Xtians love to dwell on Leviticus, but they forget about those 10 little rules in Exodus. Oh, then there’s that one about killing and the one about stealing too.

By: jdw

jdw — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 07:52:58 +0000

bad jim— There are two sides to every story. I think it’s pretty obvious that the New York Times had an agenda in running that story: they wanted to point out discrepancies between the report and Rumsfeld’s account of it—so naturally their version of what’s in the Army report is going to be different from Rumsfeld’s. Now, I’m not the Army report. I’m assuming you’re not the Army report. So how can we know what’s in the Army report when Donald Rumsfeld is saying one thing, and the New York Times—which I would accuse of publishing their article ON PURPOSE —is saying something else?

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sat, 28 Aug 2004 07:26:59 +0000

“denying responsibly” should have been “denying responsibility”. “Who’s to say who’s right, who’s wrong?” Gospodin jdw, have you been paying attention over the last few months? Ignorance is a poor defense.