Donald Rumsfeld battling alzheimer's?

[Rokenn]

Rumsfeld doesn't remember Blair's "45 minute" claim in Iraq dossier

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he did not recall British Prime Minister Tony Blair's pre-war claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction ready to be deployed in 45 minutes.

"I don't remember the statement being made, to be perfectly honest," Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference.

General Richard Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he didn't remember the statement either.

The claim made headlines around the world after Blair leveled it in a 55-page "white paper" presented to the House of Commons in September 2002.

The dossier said Iraq had military plans to use chemical and biological weapons and "some of these weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes of an order to use them."

It later became the center of a huge scandal in Britain following an allegation in a BBC report that Downing Street had "sexed up" up the Iraqi dossier by inserting the 45-minute claim knowing it was wrong.

Judge Lord Hutton, who led an inquiry into the affair, exonerated Blair after concluding that it was based on available intelligence, even though it was from a single source and referred only to battlefield weapons -- a nuance left out of the February 2002 dossier.

Rumsfeld was asked whether before the war he believed the British claim.

"I'd have to see the statement. And to have an opinion, I would have to go ask the intelligence community as to what they thought at that time," he said

"Because what it is they thought very likely would be what it is I thought. And I'd have to go back and I don't know when the statement was made," he said.

[ 02-12-2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

"I'd have to see the statement. And to have an opinion, I would have to go ask the intelligence community as to what they thought at that time," he said

"Because what it is they thought very likely would be what it is I thought. And I'd have to go back and I don't know when the statement was made," he said."

There he goes again. Anyone else remember this one by Bumsfeld:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

[ 02-12-2004, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: GForce ]

[Timber Loftis]

Again, blowing up these statements in the first instance is making mountains out of molehills.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Again, blowing up these statements in the first instance is making mountains out of molehills.

You are just WRONG Timber. Stop looking at it from an American's point of view.

The most difficult decision for any leader to make SHOULD be to take his nation to war. Blair convinced us that we should go to war against Iraq by making us believe that Saddam could hit us with WoMD within 45 minutes.

It's that simple - and it couldn't be any more important.

[ryaldin]

People talk endlessly about how cars and television, technological advancements and medical breakthroughs have changed the landscape of the planet, both physically and socially, in the course of a few centuries.

War, however, is the most destructive and life shattering creation that mankind has been able to come up with, and going to war should always be a nation's last recourse. This whole 'pre-emptive attack' baloney goes against logical thinking. And when the leader of your nation lies to get your country to go to war, it's like...well, frankly, I can't think of a similie vile enough to describe it.

I agree with Donut (I always thought it was Doughnut, for some reason).

[ryaldin]

Maybe dear don just got too caught up in his political storytelling voodoo to remeber exactly that he's supposed to pay attention to these issues of national defense.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/image...b_hands_ap.jpg

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by ryaldin: I agree with Donut (I always thought it was Doughnut, for some reason).

Completely off topic but that is how its normally spelt over here - Doughnut.

And back on topic I also agree - if Rumsfeld really doesn't realise the importance of that statement to the coalition as a whole and Britain particular then he needs his head examining. It was absolutely vital to convincing the British public to go to war.

[Timber Loftis]

Donut, I'm not going to go and re-hash for the ump-teenth time how it was perfectly reasonable for us to believe the Iraq had WMD. I guess the three biggest points are:

1. Iraq had USED WMD

2. The UN SAID Iraq had WMD and ordered them to DISARM

3. Iraq offered NO PROOF of ever disarming.

To the extend some intelligence info was imperfect, such is the nature of life. I am asked to analyze imperfect historical evidence regarding environmental conditions and advise clients on multi-million dollar decisions. The President, CIA, FBI, etc. are asked to analyze imperfect information and make decisions regarding national defense and war. It's their job.

That is why singling out a few rays of imperfect information among a thousand points of light IS making a mountain out of a molehill.

Now, whether the very real concern that Iraq had WMD was a justifiable singular basis for going to war, that is ANOTHER SEPARATE issue. I wish all issues (including Saddam's abuse of his people and refusal to cooperate with UN directives he agreed to) with Iraq had of been given equal attention by our leaders, and I wish they had not made the WMD issue a sole basis for going.

However, they were not wrong to suspect Iraq likely had WMD. Because it was VERY likely he did.

[Rokenn]

Good post Tl, but OFF-TOPIC [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

The point of the article is not the nature of the intelligence or even the fact that Iraq did/didn't have WMDs. But the fact that people in the Administration are attempting to re-write the past as to what was said and done.

Also there is this poll I saw today in the paper:
excerpt:

More than half in the poll, 54 percent, said that the Bush administration intentionally exaggerated the threat from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but more of that group says administration officials exaggerated the threat than said they lied.

I'm still amazed that Bush has not faced impeachment hearings over this. As this to me is much more serious they messing around with an intern.

[ 02-13-2004, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: Rokenn ]

[Timber Loftis]

An exaggeration is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."

A mistake is not a "high crime or misdemeanor."

Until Clinton, perjury was not considered to be a "high crime or misdemeanor," but the political will of the Congress decided it was. Perjury IS at least a crime.

So, if you want to really peg Bush for impeachment, you gotta show he LIED. And, that issue is pretty much dead. Good luck resurrecting it.

Some words are simply tossed around too much. impeachment, fascism, terrorism. Ugh, getting annoying.