Posted on 05/05/2006 11:07:16 PM PDT by ckilmer
If such a document were to exist, why take so long in getting it out? It's either bad PR or not sufficient. It may be classified to protect ongoing operations, but it would sure help the average joe taxpayer to know.
I do not believe that is part of the US Constitution. Can you specify which part?
The point that McGovern was trying to make was that Rumsfield 'lied us into going to war' but if this transcript is his 'proof' then it is apparent that the information that Rumsfield was talking about was during the war and not about going to war.
Artical 1 section 8: "To Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"
It also helped determine the tactics. Part of the reason we adapted a fast-moving attack was to deny the opportunity to deploy, and to cause the collapse of their military/command-and-control before the stuff could be pulled out and launched at us where we were.
I fail to see how US Constitution Article1, Section 8; Clause 9 applies to this discussion.
These people are maintaining the Rumsfeld deliberately lied to the American people in his press briefings. As far as I am concerned, those jerkoffs should be given as much incorrect information as possible, as should be done with all enemies of the United States, foreign and domestic, which is the category those people fall into.
If Rumsfeld has appeared in front of a legal authority (which would be relevant to your reference to the Constitution) then he would be under oath. I defy anyone to find evidence that he deliberately lied or misled.
Unless those people can find SPECIFIC evidence that he LIED deliberately under oath in front of a investigative body, they they are just going to have to pound sand and howl at the moon, which is EXACTLY what they are doing, with lots of help from the media.
The people out there panting for Rumsfeld's scalp may somehow think that trying to pull a "gotcha" ala Tim Russert and reading from a transcript of Rumsfeld saying in front of a bunch of people at a press conference that "we know where they are" translates unequivocally into "we have certain proof that there are WMD at that location", but that isn't going to cut it.
To say SecDef Rumsfeld (Or Bush, Cheney or anyone else) was wrong on the interpretation of the available intelligence is certainly a legitimate criticism. If those critics can find SPECIFIC EVIDENCE, then power to them. SPECIFIC EVIDENCE does not include hearsay. It does not include their pathetic opinion. It will have to include written or oral communications that CLEARLY show an intent to supress, misrepresent or outright lie about their decision making process.
Otherwise, they can pound sand.
To any reasonably, semi-intelligent person the naysayers look like fools now. But in their eyes they will never be perceived as fools. It's called the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome.
Iraqi INtelligence met with the Al-Qaeda group in the Phillipines in the 90's.
Is that collection of unrelated nuggets what passes for analysis in your mind?
You are correct my error. And I agree with you that they have nothing on Rumsfeld except minor differences in phrasing.
["Is that collection of unrelated nuggets what passes for analysis in your mind?"]
The "nuggets" are not unrelated.
Usama wanted any help he could get knocking over the Saudi regime. He approached Hussein for cooperation in that area.
Actually, I didn't think it was your error...I asked a question which you answered, and you were correct in the application. I suspected some other posters were confusing the issue about whether it applied.
At least that is the way I saw it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.