OPINION

The Administration "Re-Wronging" History

Written by AmeriPundit
Published November 30, 2005
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Then something odd happened to the message. Rumsfeld slipped.

The following was not heard because it wasn't reported widely. Compare the transcripts from a 2004 press conference with comments Rumsfeld made on Nov. 20, 2005, when he appeared on ABC's This Week.

In 2004, Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter about all of the various reasons that we went to Iraq, about why we continued to stay, and about the acceptance of Saddam staying in power without WMDs:

Department of Defense Transcript, excerpt of Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004.

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir — you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the UN resolutions, there would have been no war.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.

Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly — and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not — (Laughter.) — in his case, if he would have opened up the country, let the UN come in, the United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of mass destruction, he would have still been in power today, correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position — or you chose the word of the "position" — vis-à-vis no war, Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to remove him.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is — the world is fortunate, the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate, that he's not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what took place in that country has to feel the same way.

Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that's just a fact, just like — I mean, what will Libya look like two, four, five years from now…

There would have been no war... If Rumsfeld had let the UN come in… (see CNN, FOX, and other reports as to why the weapons inspectors left).

Before addressing last Sunday's Donald Rumsfeld-George Stephanopoulos interview, let's look at another set of statements made before the US Senate as reported by UPI on Oct. 3, 2005:

The Senate heard testimony last week from some of America's top generals that the war in Iraq is going worse than ever and that only 1 out of 119 Iraqi army and security battalions can operate by itself in combat situations without US military backup.

Top US generals admitted in testimony Thursday to the Senate Armed Services Committee that only a single Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate on its own without US military support. This was a stunning decrease from the three battalions that US generals had assured Congress in previous testimony were ready to operate independently. The Iraqi army consists of 119 battalions. But the generals' testimony meant that after two and a half years of US efforts, only 750 men out of 200,000 can be relied upon to operate and obey orders independently in combat situations.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
The Administration "Re-Wronging" History
Published: November 30, 2005
Type: Opinion
Section: Politics
Writer: AmeriPundit
AmeriPundit's BC Writer page
AmeriPundit's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by AmeriPundit
All Politics Articles
All Opinion articles
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — November 30, 2005 @ 10:28AM — Liberal

"There can be no doubt that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction." Dick Cheney

"Saddam has chemical weapons." Colin Powell

"Saddam has biological weapons." G. W. Bush

"We know he has these weapons and we know where they are." Donald Rumsfeld.

"He tried to obtain uranium from Africa." G.W. Bush

"Would I lie to you? Would I lie to you honey? Would I say something that wasn't true." Annie Lenox

#2 — November 30, 2005 @ 10:39AM — tommyd

This is the most despicable administration in US History. The filthiest, corrupt lying jackals to ever sit in DC and yet people still think these guys are just swell and are "protecting Merrika".
They are all war criminals. They have hurt the US so badly that it's beyond full repair. They're responsible for 9/11. They're responsible for the illegal wars of aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq. They're responsible for the continued selling out and hollowing out of America's middle class. They continue to allow millions of Third Worlders into America when we don't need them.

The Bush Adminstration is putting the final nails in America's coffin. Just wait and see. It's going to get worse and worse in this country.

#3 — November 30, 2005 @ 13:54PM — Nancy

Jeee-sus H. Christ! They don't even operate in "reality" - that's for the rest of us who live in the Real World. We're fucked.

#4 — November 30, 2005 @ 14:21PM — RedTard

"Just wait and see. It's going to get worse and worse in this country." - TommyD

Thanks for expressing your side's wishes in a clear, concise format.

#5 — November 30, 2005 @ 14:38PM — tommyd

ReTard, it's not my "my side's wishes" that thing's get worse in this country, it's just the realistic and logical outcome of a government gone really, really bad. Anyone one with the gift of free thought can see that the US's current policies can not, and will not, end in a good or beneficial way for the vast majority of American citizens. Empires never end well, but always with great and swift collapse.

But I guess you'll turn on FOX News tonight and believe whatever they tell you, so I might be wasting my time here.

Why is it so hard for people to see the truth of what's happening in this country and why it needs to change now!?!?!

#6 — November 30, 2005 @ 14:44PM — Nancy

Redtard & his ilk are members of a hard-core decreasing minority, as even the half-wits who voted for Bush in 04 are waking up & smelling the stench of corruption on The Hill & in the WH.

#7 — November 30, 2005 @ 15:02PM — tommyd

Nancy, you're right. The cheerleaders for war are so desperate to retain a little bit of their self-dignity after being so utterly defeated by the reality of America's illegal Iraq invasion that they're just lashing out at anyone who speaks up about the awful reality that this nation finds itself in because of following the insane delusions of grandeur by insane politicians.

Nancy, they're weak. They thought that they could boost their faux machismo by cheerleading the US military into "killing all dem Ay-rabs" when these guys know in their heart of hearts that they could never muster the bravery to actually put the rubber to the road and hook up with the front lines in Iraq.

It's all psychological with these guys. Shattered they all are.

#8 — November 30, 2005 @ 17:54PM — RedTard

I'm no cheerleader or chickenhawk, I was a member of the US armed forces and have been to Kuwait. I risked my life to disarm leftover Iraqi and US munitions so that little kids could play outside without fear of blowing themselves up.

I've been there and I know people very well who are over there now. They tell a different story than what you guys spew. I have to take personal experience and eyewitness accounts over propaganda from radicals angry because they lost in the last election.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/40203)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments