Rumsfeld vs Kennedy

New York Press ^ | February 16, 2004 | Russ Smith

[Apu Nahasapeemapetilon]

Rumsfeld’s a Hero

Thanks to Glenn Reynolds’ invaluable blog InstaPundit, I linked to a pretty fun bit at scrappleface.com, a website whose motto reads "News Fairly Unbalanced. We Report. You Decipher."

Dated Feb. 5, an item (which ought to make The Onion blush at its irrelevance) took out Teddy Kennedy, who’s currently bellowing at union halls for John Kerry, a man he once considered an ill-suited inheritor of his family’s (mixed) legacy.

The piece read, in part: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Sen. Edward Kennedy yesterday that he was ‘all wet’ when the senator alleged that the Bush administration lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction to justify going to war.

"… Sen. Kennedy began his questioning of the defense secretary by saying, ‘Don’t you think some members of the Bush administration should be held legally accountable for the lies they told about Iraqi weapons, and subsequent cover-up?’

"‘First, with all due respect, Senator Kennedy, you’re all wet,’ said Mr. Rumsfeld. ‘The administration has not lied or covered up. However, in general, I do believe that when a man commits a crime he should face the bar of justice. He should not be allowed to serve in positions of power in our government, and be hailed as a leader, when the question of his guilt remains unresolved, if you know what I mean.’

"‘I’m sure I do not know what you mean,’ Mr. Kennedy said. ‘But the American people deserve to know why you can’t find Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction.’

"‘Sometimes things are hard to find, even when you know where they are,’ said Mr. Rumsfeld. ‘For example, I’ve heard of a man who missed a bridge and drove his car into the water, even though he knew where the bridge was. And then sometimes you just keep diving into a problem and despite repeated efforts, you come up empty-handed. That doesn’t mean that nothing’s there. As you know, eventually, the truth comes to light.’

"Having no further questions, Mr. Kennedy yielded the remainder of his time.

 

[Fresh Wind]

Rummy is GREAT!! I'd give anything to see a picture of TK's face when this was going on!

I bet his face was bright red. No, wait. It's always bright red.

[ComVet44]

If this Senate hearing took place Feb 5, then why has it taken so long to be picked up? Wonder what the reaction was in the Senate galleries. Cheers, loud applause, much laughter?

Hurrah for Rumsfeld. He sure took the wind out of that loud mouth Kennedy buffoon.

[Burkeman1]

Before the war I said we were not going to Iraq for WMDs but to create a western looking country in the heart of the Islamic world that would be a beacon of Freedom to the rest of the region and would be a base against terrorism. Many Freepers said I was full of it and that the war was about the "threat" from WMDs. Of course that was false as even I knew then - with zero access to privaleged intel or inside info. But many people whose kid is dead or without an arm or leg or eye because of Iraq did believe they were going there because of WMDs and a potential threat. What do you say to them? Don't care?

[Burkeman1]

The President's weapon hunter, David Kay, would disagree with you. Let it go. Bush is dumping this info now for a reason. So it won't be an issue 5 months from now when the election is really under way. David Kay resigning was no accident. The administraton is getting ahead of this WMD issue now. And besides, Kerry and the Dems can't criticize Bush over this since they said the same things. Smart on Bush's part.

[_Jim]

The President's weapon hunter, David Kay, would disagree with you.

MORE selective 'excerpting' for the purposes of supporing YOUR contentions again ... WHAT did he say in his entire 'talk' again?

Grow up man. Quit doing the same sh*t our news media does EVERY SINGLE DAY.

[Neets]

I wouldn't waste my time on him.

[river rat]

Militant Islamists, terrorists, supporters of terrorists and the funders of terrorists have OPENLY declared war...and they have launched many attacks against America and her interests and allies..

Your hero Clinton, wined and dined Arafat for 8 years - and all it did was encourage that murderer to ask for more and cause more blood shed.

How much history have you NOT read - to not understand you do NOT negotiate with terrorists, aggressors or lunatics?

Like cockroaches -- they must be destroyed..

There can be NO DOUBT that Iraq once possessed WMDs, because he USED them. Saddam's own son-in-law testified to the fact of ongoing illegal programs to develop them and was then murdered by Saddam. To deny Saddam was a threat or an enemy worthy of attacking and destroying is self delusion. The ONLY question regarding WMDs, is where are they now?

If we NEVER find any WMDsin Iraq --- The effort was worth it and should be CONTINUED in other countries that have been clearly defined as rouge nations...

If you're too cowardly to resist the threat - then surrender to it - but allow those of us that wish to, to continue the fight...

You just curl into the fetal position, suck your thumb --- and do as all cowards and fools have done in the past - and have others fight your wars and defend your sorry ass.

Semper Fi

[hershey]

If you haven't already done so, make time to read Charles Krauthammer's recent speech before AEI. His reasoning is compelling. Sorry, don't have the link, perhaps someone can post it. Nothing about being the world's only superpower amid the war against terror is simple. We fight preemptively because we don't want another 9/11 here -- as you know. We don't have a choice. These people hate us because their lives are wretched -- thousands of young men with no jobs, no hope, ginned up by ranting clerics and tyrants who blame the US for their condition. They're fanatics, and they're not going away soon. What to do? As Krauthammer said (I'm paraphrasing here), clean out the worst of the festering mess and leave something hopeful...a fledgling democracy. It's a world war, no less than 1941, and I can't think families of wounded soldiers and sailors back then would have counted their sacrifices to have been given in vain. Of course we care about our forces today, we mourn each and every loss and wonder if the Iraqui people have any idea of what we're doing for them. Once in a while accounts of the progress we're making are published (not often enought), and I read a line or two from an Iraqui citizen, thanking us. I'd like to see them given a voice on Frontline, on PBS, on NPR, on CBS, NBC, CNN, too.

[MoodyBlu]

Before the war I said we were not going to Iraq for WMDs but to create a western looking country in the heart of the Islamic world that would be a beacon of Freedom to the rest of the region and would be a base against terrorism. Many Freepers said I was full of it and that the war was about the "threat" from WMDs. Of course that was false as even I knew then - with zero access to privaleged intel or inside info. But many people whose kid is dead or without an arm or leg or eye because of Iraq did believe they were going there because of WMDs and a potential threat. What do you say to them? Don't care?

I for the most part agree with your take on the real reason for going into Iraq. That said, I believed that WMD would be found and I do not believe that the WMD angle was made up.

Once again, the majority of Americans and the damn media, focus on 9-11 as the beginning of our terrorism problem. For nearly 30 years prior to 9-11, nearly 1,000 American soldiers and civilians were murdered by the Islamic nutsos. I for one am glad that we finally had an administration willing to take the fight to the enemy. God Bless our soldiers.

MoodyBlu

[_Jim]

I wouldn't waste my time on him.

If it weren't for the fact he probably causes some to 'sharpen' their arguments - he would be completely ignored ...

Either he's here to play nefarious 'games' of that type - or has truly 'drunk of the koolaid' that is doled out by the mass-media (in all its forms) - the appearance in any case is the same ...

[So Cal Rocket]

This originally appeared in Scrappleface.com - a parody site. Not true.

[Burkeman1]

Krauthammer's reasons for why we are in Iraq are indeed the reasons. As I have always suspected (and they could be valid and true). However, they are not the reasons this administration used to justify it to the public. Typically Americans don't wan't to send their kids to die for intellectual crusades about making other countries democratic. That is why I suspect the WMD threat was pumped up. I think Bush had enough moral credibility to actually get Americans to sign on to such a war of "nation building" in the Middle East. I think he chose another route. Not to say he "lied". I think he did believe Iraq had WMDs. My 2 cents.

[visualops]

Once again, the majority of Americans and the damn media, focus on 9-11 as the beginning of our terrorism problem. For nearly 30 years prior to 9-11, nearly 1,000 American soldiers and civilians were murdered by the Islamic nutsos. I for one am glad that we finally had an administration willing to take the fight to the enemy. God Bless our soldiers.

BUMP FOR TRUTH

[visualops]

You know Scrappleface is like The Onion, it's just a joke. Very funny though (and we can dream, can't we?) lol

[NonValueAdded]

[AmericaUnited]

You just curl into the fetal position, suck your thumb --- and do as all cowards and fools have done in the past - and have others fight your wars and defend your sorry ass.

A big Yeah and Amen!

[Stallone]

Well Done.

And kudos to _Jim as well.

[isthisnickcool]

But many people whose kid is dead or without an arm or leg or eye because of Iraq did believe they were going there because of WMDs and a potential threat. What do you say to them? Don't care?

Actually, yes, I don't care that we have not yet found any WMD's. And, I really don't care if we do. And I don't fault the president for doing what he did if he did so using bad intel.

And what of Saddam? Remember him? The idiot that should not have played poker with the president. It's HIS FAULT. Nobody elses. His! The fool!

Frankly, we should have gone into Iraq long ago just because Saddam was funding terrorists like Arafat. But no, we have people like you that think those running the ME will be nicey nicey if we are. Well, on 9/11 they drew first blood. Big mistake.

[isthisnickcool]

But many people whose kid is dead or without an arm or leg or eye because of Iraq did believe they were going there because of WMDs and a potential threat. What do you say to them? Don't care?

Actually, yes, I don't care that we have not yet found any WMD's. And, I really don't care if we do. And I don't fault the president for doing what he did if he did so using bad intel.

And what of Saddam? Remember him? The idiot that should not have played poker with the president. It's HIS FAULT. Nobody elses. His! The fool!

Frankly, we should have gone into Iraq long ago just because Saddam was funding terrorists like Arafat. But no, we have people like you that think those running the ME will be nicey nicey if we are. Well, on 9/11 they drew first blood. Big mistake.

[Burkeman1]

No we have people like you who mention 9/11 in the same breath as Iraq when Bush himself said the two are not connected:

Bush Reports No Evidence of Hussein Tie to 9/11 By DAVID E. SANGER (New York Times) WASHINGTON, Sept. 17 - President Bush said today that he had seen no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, as the White House tried to correct an assertion that Vice President Dick Cheney left extremely murky on Sunday. Mr. Cheney, on "Meet the Press" on NBC-TV, was asked about polls that showed that a majority of Americans believed that Mr. Hussein had been involved in the attacks. "I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," said Mr. Cheney, who leads the hawkish wing of the Bush administration. Asked whether the connection existed, Mr. Cheney said, "We don't know." He described Mr. Hussein's reported connections to Al Qaeda, connections that American intelligence analysts say were not very deep. Mr. Bush, asked by a reporter today about that statement, said, "No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th."