Results 1 to 30 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    269

    Rumsfeld caught lying on TV

    How do you act when you're caught lying on TV?
    This is what Rumsfeld does

    caught on video

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    I am very against The Bush Administration. Bush has failed America with his incompetence, and betrayed us with his lies. If the allegations are true, which I believe they are,then this administration is a manifest fraud that has committed a monstrous and ongoing series of crimes against humanity and the republic.


    However, the video you posted is ludacris. They do not allow Mr. Rumsfeld time to answer the question. They continue to talk over him and interupt him. I do not see it as him "making up lies" on TV, but not having enough time to answer the questions.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Cebu
    Posts
    1,039
    I believe the Bush Admin are basically doing good.
    He who hates correction will die. --Proverbs 15:10
    Jeffrey's Cute Blog | My stockphotos and illustrations

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    THE NET
    Posts
    67
    Originally posted by Rob83
    I am very against The Bush Administration. Bush has failed America with his incompetence, and betrayed us with his lies. If the allegations are true, which I believe they are,then this administration is a manifest fraud that has committed a monstrous and ongoing series of crimes against humanity and the republic.


    However, the video you posted is ludacris. They do not allow Mr. Rumsfeld time to answer the question. They continue to talk over him and interupt him. I do not see it as him "making up lies" on TV, but not having enough time to answer the questions.
    I Agree.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    269
    Originally posted by Rob83

    However, the video you posted is ludacris. They do not allow Mr. Rumsfeld time to answer the question. They continue to talk over him and interupt him. I do not see it as him "making up lies" on TV, but not having enough time to answer the questions.
    Howso? First he says that he (or Bush) never said Iraq was an immediate threat (which is a lie) then it turns out he did say Iraq was an immediate threat.

    If that's not a lie then can you explain the definition of a lie to me?

    The excuses he was trying to come up with were not answers to any question.

    He's caught lying on the spot, and even then does not admit it.
    Last edited by barleduc; 03-22-2004 at 08:09 AM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by barleduc
    Howso? First he says that he (or Bush) never said Iraq was an immediate threat (which is a lie) then it turns out he did say Iraq was an immediate threat.

    If that's not a lie then can you explain the definition of a lie to me?

    The excuses he was trying to come up with were not answers to any question.

    He's caught lying on the spot, and even then does not admit it.
    He doesn't have time to answer a question. He's able to say two words and they interupt him.

    This is a poor excuse at attacking Mr. Rumsfeld

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    269
    Originally posted by Rob83
    He doesn't have time to answer a question. He's able to say two words and they interupt him.

    This is a poor excuse at attacking Mr. Rumsfeld
    Again, can you tell me what question he was answering ? The last question in the conversation came from him! He asked for citations and got them.

    The way he reacted is very typical of most people in this administration in my opinion. He could have said 'I apologize I don't recall ever having said that'.

    What does he do? He is trying to stutter his way out, avoiding the facts that have just been presented.

  8. #8
    He doesn't say that Iraq is an immediate threat. He says no terror state. I believe what Bush and co. are doing is right, someone has to stop them, how many innocent people would you let them kill before you went and stopped them?

    The first Bush should of went after Saddam in the Gulf, he's correcting mistakes, let him get on with it, you'll thank him when there is no terror threat.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    1,095
    Originally posted by 4 Degrees
    He doesn't say that Iraq is an immediate threat. He says no terror state. I believe what Bush and co. are doing is right, someone has to stop them, how many innocent people would you let them kill before you went and stopped them?
    You may have stopped reading before the end of the quote:

    No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq -- Donald Rumsfeld, Sept 18, 2002
    Yes, he says Iraq is an immediate threat. I agree with barleduc -- had he apologized for not recalling, that would be much better than trying to stutter you way out of it like they usually do. Not only that, but Rumsfeld was bashing the critics for using "immediate threat" as if it was such a bad way to put it. The Bush administration is a bunch of jokers. I hope the rest of the voting public see it as well.
    Alex Llera
    Professional Server Management
    FreeBSD|Linux|HSphere|Cpanel|Plesk

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    122
    Originally posted by allera

    Yes, he says Iraq is an immediate threat.
    Wrong. He says that there is no more [...] immediate threat than Iraq. If you have many non immediate threats the most immediate threat is still not immediate.

    Just quibbling..
    Last edited by fish; 03-22-2004 at 09:45 AM.
    Good Web Hosting Info - Information about web hosting

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    lol. Pretty lame. I agree with Rob83. They couldn't nail him with "immenent threat", in that video. They got close, but they couldn't nail him there. They're spinning with that video, and not doing a very good job at it. Looks like some 15yr olds put that spin together.

    Surely someone could do better spin than that, with all the possible hundreds of hours of media interviews Rumsfeld has done on the issue of the IRAQ invasion and occupation.

    Laughable how they're all experts in highnsight (sp?) too.

  12. #12
    allera - Yes I did stop reading, thanks for pointing that out.

    Aussie Bob, you're right, does look like a school kids Media Assignment, maybe their second?

    I still however, agree with what Bush and co. is doing. A lot more people will die if he doesn't do anything. Someone had to step in eventually, Bush, Blair, and the other World Leaders involved are the only ones with balls to do anything.

    I disagree that they based it on lies, at the end of the day, if it's a mutual feeling between nations, including that of the country it's about, in this case Iraq, that they want rid of the power there, then by all means necessary, they should be removed from power.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by 4 Degrees
    allera - Yes I did stop reading, thanks for pointing that out.

    Aussie Bob, you're right, does look like a school kids Media Assignment, maybe their second?

    I still however, agree with what Bush and co. is doing. A lot more people will die if he doesn't do anything. Someone had to step in eventually, Bush, Blair, and the other World Leaders involved are the only ones with balls to do anything.

    I disagree that they based it on lies, at the end of the day, if it's a mutual feeling between nations, including that of the country it's about, in this case Iraq, that they want rid of the power there, then by all means necessary, they should be removed from power.
    I do not know what "Bush and co." means.

    However, we are not upset at what Bush has done. Saddam should have be taken out of power a long time ago, it's the way he went about it.

    He lied to the American people. He used 9-11 to attack Saddam. He tried to associate the 9-11 attacks with Saddam.. he made the American people belive that.

  14. #14
    Bush and co. = His party (or whatever you call them over there)

    I do agree, he should not have lied about why going to war, the truth would have justified the reason to take him from power.
    ServeYourSite
    Web hosting done right
    ██ Shared, Reseller and Dedicated web hosting
    An Easy Web Presence Company

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    12,200
    Originally posted by Rob83

    However, the video you posted is ludacris.
    I could have sworn it was 50 Cent

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by 4 Degrees
    Bush and co. = His party (or whatever you call them over there)

    I do agree, he should not have lied about why going to war, the truth would have justified the reason to take him from power.
    Ohh.. we call it the Bush Administration.

    Now.. you being a foreigner, what is your opinion of the living conditions in the U.S.? How about our Education? Health Care System? How about our unemployment rate?

    Over all opinion of the U.S?

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    Originally posted by timechange.com
    I could have sworn it was 50 Cent
    50 cents couldn't make it - he was too busy getting shot at.

    ugh 90 Second rule!!!!!!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    California
    Posts
    109
    Originally posted by 4 Degrees
    He doesn't say that Iraq is an immediate threat. He says no terror state. I believe what Bush and co. are doing is right, someone has to stop them, how many innocent people would you let them kill before you went and stopped them?
    Valid point. But shouldn't they (Bush Administration) stop feeding the terrorists also? They keep giving huge amounts of $$$ to a certain ally, which supports terrorism, to fight terrorism! Worst of all, they make people think that their ally is helping them fight terrorism.

    They can use the same money to help our own economy or improve education system or improve healthcare system... or even donate to California who are having tough times with deficits.

    During the 2000 elections, I was rooting for Bush over Gore... now I regret it. Bush is responsible for tarnished image of US; his decisions have cost us the respect that we once had in the world.

    Back to Rumsfeld... whenever I saw his interviews on TV even during the war was going on (well, over the past year), I was convinced that he is just trying to fool the American public. It was more fun to watch that Iraqi Information Minister

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,612
    They keep giving huge amounts of $$$ to a certain ally, which supports terrorism, to fight terrorism! Worst of all, they make people think that their ally is helping them fight terrorism.


    Can you be kind enough to list an ally that supports terrorism and also fights against it all at the same time?

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    13,277
    Excellent,

    Another vote to censor bush!!!

    The Dude

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,852
    Originally posted by ForumsAddict


    Can you be kind enough to list an ally that supports terrorism and also fights against it all at the same time? [/B]

    Saudi Arabia.

  22. #22
    Originally posted by blue27
    Saudi Arabia.
    Lets also add:

    Pakistan

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Miami, FL
    Posts
    3,262
    lol.

    Let's rewind to a few years ago. Let's see who we funded..

    Osama Bin Laden...
    Saddam


    Interesting..

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    417
    I think what bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq is in best interest of America. It was necessary for Americans to retaliate and show terrorist that they won't get it through if they attack America (911). After all USA is the most powerful country in the world and one should think twice before attacking super power.

    Yes, you guessed right, i am not american.

    edit: Yesterday they ran few plains into your cities, if you won't do anything tomorrow they will throw nukes in your cities! and yes people like saddam will fund them. Terrorist don't understand polite language. They must be shot dead. They can be feared not stopped. The best way to weaken them is to cut their funding resources. So stop blamming your president and show some respect for him.
    Last edited by X-Max; 03-22-2004 at 08:22 PM.
    * `*:. .:*` * ~ X-Max ~ * `*:. .:*` *
    I love Wikipedia.

  25. #25
    Originally posted by X-Max
    I think what bush did in Afghanistan and Iraq is in best interest of America. It was necessary for Americans to retaliate and show terrorist that they won't get it through if they attack America (911). After all USA is the most powerful country in the world and one should think twice before attacking super power.

    Yes, you guessed right, i am not american.

    edit: Yesterday they ran few plains into your cities, if you won't do anything tomorrow they will throw nukes in your cities! and yes people like saddam will fund them. Terrorist don't understand polite language. They must be shot dead. They can be feared not stopped. The best way to weaken them is to cut their funding resources. So stop blamming your president and show some respect for him.
    There's no call for attacking ANY civilians. Be they citizens of the most powerful country or the least powerful and poorest. A human life is a human life. There should be consequences for taking innocent lives not just AMERICAN lives (and I AM American).

    Maybe we should show some respect for the lives of the innocent people lost in this so called 'war on terror' before we show some respect for the, let me be nice, 'man' who took them.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Southern Cal
    Posts
    1,288
    Right, and Iraq has WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Al Queda != Iraq.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    908
    Originally posted by speedy007h
    There's no call for attacking ANY civilians. Be they citizens of the most powerful country or the least powerful and poorest. A human life is a human life. There should be consequences for taking innocent lives not just AMERICAN lives (and I AM American).
    If it is the civilians that are killing the soldiers, who should the soldiers kill? I also highly doubt that the US army is purposely going out and attacking civilians.

    Yes, it is sad to hear that innocent civilians are being killed. However, innocent deaths occur in EVERY war, and there is no reason everyone should think this will be different.
    I buy vBulletin licenses and vBSEO licenses!

  28. #28
    Originally posted by PCplayground
    If it is the civilians that are killing the soldiers, who should the soldiers kill? I also highly doubt that the US army is purposely going out and attacking civilians.

    Yes, it is sad to hear that innocent civilians are being killed. However, innocent deaths occur in EVERY war, and there is no reason everyone should think this will be different.
    .

    You either didn't understand my argument or are twisting my words.

    The part of my post you quoted was in response to the previous post that stated - "It was necessary for Americans to retaliate and show terrorist that they won't get it through if they attack America (911). After all USA is the most powerful country in the world and one should think twice before attacking super power". Thats what I meant by there's no call for attacking any Civilians.

    I also don't understand your question. You say who should the soldiers kill? As if to say since there is no army, the soldiers should kill civilians. Then you go and say that you doubt the US army is purposefully going out and attacking civilians.

    Let's put it this way:
    The tens of thousands civilians killed that I mentioned - people not involved in anything, people going about their business, not attacking anybody, not part of Al Qaeda or any terrorist group or whatever. Not once did I say the US army is going out and attacking civilians. Read my post again if u need to.

    Yes, innocent lives ARE taken in every war and no one expected this to be different, which is EXACTLY WHY we didn't want this 'war' to begin with. It was an unjustified 'war'. Not to mention the large number of fellow Americans we have lost.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Australia (Crikey)
    Posts
    2,271
    caught red handed.....I bet his stomach dropped when you saw that come up on the screen

    I do however think that what the bush administration did was right and I am sure none of you can say that you are not glad the Saddam is no longer in power....

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,612
    Lets also add:

    Pakistan


    Will not agree with you on this...If you live in *USA* and watch or read the news, you will notice that its the *pakistani soldiers that are dying for you* and your security and fighting terrorists near the border area with afghanistan, *so* that your future generations can be safe from these mad people.

    Same goes with Iraq and other nations where US is currently operating. Now i may not agree completely with the policies of the administration but at least world is a safer place now or *should be* few years from now.
    Last edited by ForumsAddict; 03-23-2004 at 02:30 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •