Video clip of Rumseld on Face The Nation

Face The Nation
SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase "immediate threat." I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.

Mr. FRIEDMAN: We have one here. It says "some have argued that the nu"--this is you speaking--"that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."

Sec. RUMSFELD: And--and...

Mr. FRIEDMAN: It was close to imminent.

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, I've--I've tried to be precise, and I've tried to be accurate. I'm s--

Mr. FRIEDMAN: "No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

Sec. RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm. It--my view of--of the situation was that he--he had--we--we believe, the best intelligence that we had and other countries had and that--that we believed and we still do not know--we will know.

via Steven Johnson via Center for American Progress

While I'm at it...

This reminds me that I was moved by Colin Powell's speech in Davos about WMD and he spoke convincingly about his belief in WMD. I was almost convinced about the need to go into Iraq based solely on the WMD argument.

Also...

Here is a trailer from The Truth Uncovered of a video they are making for distribution about this topic.

via Wirefarm

13 Comments

The most powerful administration in the world goes to a war without facts and kill thousands of innocent foreigners and more than 500 american soldiers, just because they «believed». They were wrong and they must pay.

Brilliant posting. Thanks.

I think over 30 mass graves were more then enough justification.

Plus Libya's nuclear weapons program, Pakistan spreading nuke weapons info and Iran's nuc - oh wait - they just kicked the IAES out of their country- didn't they?

And all you can talk about is "imminent".

Fascinating.

bartb: To free iraqui people, you kill ten thousand innocents, yeah! How many mass graves can you fill with that? http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Here's my review of that film. There were actually houseparties all around the country showing it, sponsored by Moveon.org.

There are at least two audiences to everything like this political propaganda. I don't think people like Cheney really believed this stuff about WMDs. I mean, they probably thought they'd find some, but they didn't think Iraq was an "immediate" threat.

See, here in the U.S., to get anything done, you need public opinion on your side, and public opinion is a large and somewhat malleable beast, but only malleable insofar as the arguments made to it are simple and straightforward.

The reasons behind this war are really about maintaining faith in the global economy and maintaining the U.S. geostrategic advantage. The propaganda was what it had to be to motivate the public. It was this way for WWII, WWI, and many more cases, I'm sure.

This is really the only answer to the question "what do you do when democracy (read ignorance of the general public) hampers leaders from doing what they think is right?" The only answer is to tell them what they need to hear. Education of the entire U.S., including rural blue-collar workers, on complex issues of global power strategy is not possible.

Plus, if they came out with their real motives, which are essentially the self-interest of the U.S. (largely justified, imho), it would seem too unpalatable on its face, although practical and realistic in truth.

Yes, this is harsh, but this is just how the U.S. operates. The messages in the media are not for _your_ ears. They are really for the large sitcom audiences, the ones that vote.

Try this one on:

We were wrong, but we don't want to admit it because an election is coming up.

So we're doing our best to fool ourselves and the public, so that we go down in history as the people who met the greatest threat since the Cold War, instead of the people who created the greatest threat since the Cold War.

There is nothing special about the interview. That's the way Cheney always speaks. Sure, he wasn't prepared for Friedman using that exact quote.

Bush expected there to be WMD in Iraq, after September 11th and when he announced plans to go into Iraq he had the highest approval rating since the attack on hawaii.

Now politicians on both sides are playing the general public, the majority of which are poorly informed, as to what the right and wrong decisions were. After the fact.

Americans are now saying that we should have never went into Iraq, yet when election year comes around we will have two people to vote for, one to decided to go in, and the other who agreed.

Even if Bush goes, another politician who like the majority of Americans after September 11th thought going into Iraq was right, will take his place. So what is the difference?

Here's a shorter version of my earlier comment:

They didn't really expect there to be WMDs there. It was all propaganda, because they knew their real reasons would not be accepted by the public.

Those real reasons, IMHO, do have merit. Most Americans just can't think that hard though.

There's a saying that I love to refer in times like this: 'Democracy is a system in which the voters get what they deserve.'

As 'no one' said - Americans voted him in, and when he talked about going to war in Iraq, public opinion was overwhelmingly on his side. (I have some sympathy for the British, who overwhelmingly opposed going to war without a UN mandate, but were pushed in by Blair.)

Americans have supported the 'we'll do whatever we like, and to hell with the UN' policy for years - they supported it again with Iraq, and now Americans bleeding for it. France, Germany and Russia pushed hard based on available evidence to wait and see before going to war. And they were right.

Don't you dare continue to foist lies like "Americans voted [Bush] in." George W. Bush lost the popular vote by more than 500,000 back in the 2000 election and it's only through the intervention of the Supreme Court (specifically the five right-wing members appointed by Papa Bush and Reagan) that Bush was SELECTED for the Presidency. So don't you for a single second claim that Bush has any legitimacy as President.

Still bitter about that? Geez...

We have a democracy that is based off the electoral vote - Bush won. Get over it.

Hey, I WON that election suckers.

Leave a comment

8 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rumsfeld Faces The Nation, And Stammers.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://joi.ito.com/MT-4.35-en/mt-tb.cgi/1450

Oh, the summer of 1998. One of the best times of my life. One of the worst times in the life of Bill Clinton... having to figure out in front of the entire world that truth depends to an enormous... Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

South by Southwest March 12-17, 2004 Austin Texas A technology media culture conference amidst TexMex, BBQ and cheap beer. Read More

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the Business and the Economy category.

Books is the previous category.

Computer and Network Risks is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index.

Monthly Archives