It's official : Rummy backs off claims of Qaeda connection to Saddam

[Cyrus]

<font color="blue">...Of course, being privy to "more information" than Rummy has, MMMMMM will still hold on to that one! /images/graemlins/cool.gif </font>

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld appeared Monday to back off earlier statements suggesting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda.

He also conceded that U.S. intelligence was "wrong" in its conclusions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

As recently as June, Vice President Dick Cheney was saying the opposite.


CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/index.html)

[Al Mirpuri]

This should sink Bush but who knows? It's almost as if Rummy had joined the Democrats. Is some sort of score being settled or is it just a gaff?

[MMMMMM]

First of all, Cyrus, I neve claimed to be privy to secret information.

You however have a lot of balls to ever be talking about spin. You quote Rumsfeld in one paragraph THEN YOU LEAVE OUT THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH WHERE HE IS REPORTED ISSUING A STATEMENT ABOUT HIS STATEMENT.

This is what you quoted:

"When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

This, the next paragraph in the article, is what you left out:

"But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement:

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

[elwoodblues]

It sounds like his position is what the 9/11 commission found -- there are links/connections but there is no evidence of collaboration.

I thought this was a pretty funny quote in the article:

[ QUOTE ]
, Rumsfeld said he the CIA provided "bulletproof" evidence demonstrating "that there are in fact al Qaeda in Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

There's probably bulletproof evidence that there are al Queda in the US as well.

[sexypanda]

[ QUOTE ]

"When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

This, the next paragraph in the article, is what you left out:

"But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement:

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, what a flip-flopper!!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[ThaSaltCracka]

How the hell does Rumsfield still have a job? This man is out of his league and an absolute failure as a sec of defense. And the funny thing is, him and Cheney would have never said they were wrong if the 9/11 commisions hadn't said there was no connection. It makes me wonder why Bush originally blocked the commision. My guess is Bush, Cheney, et all, knew there was no connection from the start. Maybe I am paranoid /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[andyfox]

The more amazing thing than Rumsfeld still having a job is that it looks like the president will still have his job for four more years. He claimed we needed to invade Iraq because there was a nuclear threat; there wasn't any. He had evidence on his desk the day before he told us this that showed exactly the opposite. He claimed there were MWDs; there weren't any and he has admitted that the intelligence on which he based that conclusion was bad. He tried to block the 9/11 commission and now that commission had concluded that the Iraq-Al Qaeda connection wasn't what the administration said it was. He's the first president to preside over a net loss in jobs since Herbert Hoover, yet he's ahead in the polls.

Perhaps John O'Neill has been the key man in this.

[ThaSaltCracka]

you summed it up perfectly Andy. Iraq is the one issue in which I strongly strongly disagree on with the president, and Iraq is a total clusterfuck. How can an administration be THIS wrong about something? I mean seriously, what if anything did they get right about Iraq? The complete opposite happened/was uncovered from what they said. If the president doesn't lose just based upon this issue, than he may be more infallable than the Pope, and I like the Pope.

[meow_meow]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Cyrus, I neve claimed to be privy to secret information.

You however have a lot of balls to ever be talking about spin. You quote Rumsfeld in one paragraph THEN YOU LEAVE OUT THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH WHERE HE IS REPORTED ISSUING A STATEMENT ABOUT HIS STATEMENT.

This is what you quoted:

"When asked about any connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, Rumsfeld said, "To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

This, the next paragraph in the article, is what you left out:

"But a short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement:

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations regarding ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood.

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew this couldn't be true: classic Rumsfeld.
He says something - presumably the first part is a verbatim quote from his committee testimony, and then later completely contradicts it, on the grounds that he was "misunderstood".
He didn't make a mistake, he wasn't quoted out of context. No, he was misunderstood. That he can continue to "acknowledge" links between Sadaam and Al Qaeda in the face of the uttur lack of any evidence, and without offering any himself, just blows me away...

[ACPlayer]

Its OK, he is not flip-flopping just spinning. There is a difference you know.

[Cyrus]

<font color="blue">This guy must be losing it!.. </font>

Washington (CNN) ...A short time later, Rumsfeld released a statement: "A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) regarding ties between al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood".

<font color="blue">Then he does it again, on the issue of Iraqi elections: </font> [b]

Rumsfeld was circumspect when asked whether the "no-go" zones that exist in a number of major cities in Iraq would invalidate the results of January's planned elections.

"Needless to say, your first choice is to say that every -- we know every Iraqi deserves the right to vote. And one would anticipate that that would be the case."

Rumsfeld's answer differed from one he gave to a similar question last month. He implied then that voting need not be universal. "Let's say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn't because the violence was too great," he said. "Well, that's -- so be it. Nothing's perfect in life. So you have an election that's not quite perfect."



CNN Report (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/05/bremer.rumsfeld/index.html)



<font color="white">. </font>

[cardcounter0]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg

[andyfox]

"A question I answered today at an appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) regarding ties between al Qaeda and Iraq regrettably was misunderstood".

Does he mean he misunderstood the question? Does he mean that others misunderstood the question? Or does he mean that his answer has been misunderstood? I think he means his answer has been misunderstood. Is there any wonder?

[andyfox]

Someone should teach Rumsfled how to use the English language.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."

"I have acknowledged since September 2002 that there were ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq."

Wasn't this guy in Orwell's 1984? Or is it reasonable to ask him how he could be acknowledging something since September 2002 about which he has not seen any convincing evidence?

[1111]

I love the Orwell reference. To my knowledge, there has not been a politician who fits this mold as well as Rumsfeld since Nixon.

[MMMMMM]

Why are "strong, hard" evidence and "convincing" evidence necessarily always the same thing?

If I gather enough information on someone at the poker table--lots of little bits of information that add up, yet none individually are "strong, hard" evidence--I frequently may draw conclusions about that person or his play--and I'm generally right in those conclusions--even without "strong, hard" evidence.

Lots of little pieces of information often provide pretty convincing material from which to draw likely conclusions--even if none of that material is "strong, hard" or irrefutable.

I think Rumsfeld could (and probably should) have been more explicit, but I don't think his statements are inherently and necessarily contradictory.

[Cyrus]

Just like old Ronnie, the most loyal of Nixon staffers (and the one most rudely treated by ol' Dick), who was always the last one to be told about his boss' latest admissions:

Hey, M? Repeat after me:

My previous statement is no longer operative!

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus your problem is that you neither read nor think with a fine-toothed comb;-)

Sometimes the fine points do matter, you know.

[Cyrus]

"Your problem is that you neither read nor think with a fine-toothed comb. Sometimes the fine points do matter, you know."

Of course they do. But not all the time. And certainly not in this case.

You see, either the WMDs are there -- or they are not.

And, the conclusion is, they are not. (That's what the CIA said yesterday, with the utmost finality.)

All you guys have to fall back on are (wait for it!) "Saddam's intentions" (gauged how, please, I wanna know 'cause this would be more helpful in poker than in Baghdad!) and other such voodoo nonsense.

You have the nerve to ask me to "fine comb" a text at the same time when you and other neocons accuse me of "nitpicking too much". And you have the nerve of accusing me that I do not "change my mind" or "admit to my mistakes" when you, and all your lot, refuse to accept a stone, cold fact that has been accepted by everybody else --the CIA, the White House, Congress, everyone: there were no WMDs in Iraq.

....And there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. And there were no connections between Saddam and anti-American terrorist activities. And the UN sanctions were working. And the terrorist threat worldwide has increased rather than decrease, because of the Iraqi war.

Slowly you will get to realize all the above, too. Admitting it, though, is another thing altogether.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
"Your problem is that you neither read nor think with a fine-toothed comb. Sometimes the fine points do matter, you know."

Of course they do. But not all the time. And certainly not in this case.

You see, either the WMDs are there -- or they are not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The issue in this threadline, you chucklehead you, was Rummy's statements about Iraq's al-Qaeda links or lack thereof--not about WMD. And yes, Rumy's two statements are different with regard to the matter in question--though not so significantly different as some other distinctions you have missed at times in discussions on these boards.


[ QUOTE ]
And, the conclusion is, they are not. (That's what the CIA said yesterday, with the utmost finality.)

All you guys have to fall back on are (wait for it!) "Saddam's intentions" (gauged how, please, I wanna know 'cause this would be more helpful in poker than in Baghdad!) and other such voodoo nonsense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saddam's history was very consistent in seeking WMD and in trying to evade inspections, etc. Want a poker example? If you know a certain poker player ALWAYS loves to check-raise and back-raise, and never bets his hands outright, and has done this consistently the last 15 years you have played with him, it is pretty safe to say that he is intending to check-raise this hand as well. To think otherwise would be rather ridiculous.


[ QUOTE ]
You have the nerve to ask me to "fine comb" a text at the same time when you and other neocons accuse me of "nitpicking too much".

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I am not a Neocon but a Classic Liberal with a strong Constitutional outlook. I have also never accused you of nitpicking--if anything, you commonly tend to fail to pay attention to important details or nuances, not the reverse. Witness in this threadline how you managed to not pay attention to what was being discussed: the al-Qaeda links, not the WMD. And you even started the thread yourself!


[ QUOTE ]
And you have the nerve of accusing me that I do not "change my mind" or "admit to my mistakes" when you, and all your lot, refuse to accept a stone, cold fact that has been accepted by everybody else --the CIA, the White House, Congress, everyone: there were no WMDs in Iraq.

....And there was no al Qaeda in Iraq. And there were no connections between Saddam and anti-American terrorist activities. And the UN sanctions were working. And the terrorist threat worldwide has increased rather than decrease, because of the Iraqi war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those things might be so, but I am arguing that we could not afford to chance the darker and more catastrophic side of things.


[ QUOTE ]
Slowly you will get to realize all the above, too. Admitting it, though, is another thing altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

A statement laced deep with irony indeed.

[Cyrus]

"Witness in this threadline how you managed to not pay attention to what was being discussed: the al-Qaeda links, not the WMD."

You dufus. As I said, it was me who originally brought the Saddam/al Qaeda (non)connection issue to the forum's attention. What more do you want?

"The issue in this threadline was Rummy's statements about Iraq's al-Qaeda links or lack thereof--not about WMD."

First of all, you were called to understand that you cannot weasel indefinitely when faced with stone, cold, hard facts, such as that there were no WMDs in Iraq - period. You have tried a lot of times, against mounting and conclusive evidence to weasel your way out of admitting that plain-as-day obvious fact -- so you are being called on it, and made an example of bad faith in a dialogue.

Second, the issue about a connection between Saddam and Qaeda is also a foregone, slam-dunk conclusion : there was none! So, the example of WMDs is relevant - but will surely pass over your chucklehead too.

Third, it's my threadline and I can change the subject any time I wanna!.. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

"If you know a certain poker player ALWAYS loves to check-raise and back-raise, and never bets his hands outright, and has done this consistently the last 15 years you have played with him, it is pretty safe to say that he is intending to check-raise this hand as well. To think otherwise would be rather ridiculous.2

You are behind the times, baby.

That poker player in your example? He was indeed acting the way you described before 1992 (at a time when YOU WERE STAKING 'IM TOO /images/graemlins/cool.gif!) but sometime after that date and until last year's "game", he was showing no sign of aggression at all, any time he dared raise (or even call!) he got his face punched and was generally under total control -- from ground, sea and air. Draw youw own conclusions, from then on.

"Those things might be so, but I am arguing that we could not afford to chance the darker and more catastrophic side of things."

So even if all the things I submitted were true (ie no WMDs, no ties to terror, no danger from allowing the UN to work its way, etc), you'd still invade. This is some advanced thinking, I gotta admit.

Military policy based on hunches, rushed analysis and assumptions. Brilliant.