Comments on: Chilling

By: JB

JB — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:52:26 +0000

Update: after looking into it a bit more, I do have to admit that I am slightly (and only slightly) more understanding of the attempted removal, since there were several incidents of disruption by protesters earlier in this event. Those were during the speech and prior to the Q & A session, though, so there’s still no call for removing someone who’s calmly asking a question after being invited to do so.

I also learned that in the operation that is being referred to (regarding the protective clothing), the troops for one of our “partners” (Australia) decided not to wear the protective garments in that case, because they did not believe WMD story, which is interesting.

By: JB

JB — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 23:39:25 +0000

I realize that with all the lies it gets a bit confusing, but the particular lie in question this time wasn’t whether he believed it was true or not, but whether he previously said that he knew where the WMDs were. That’s not an ambiguous point, he either said it or he didn’t, unless you’re saying that he believed he hadn’t said he knew where they were previously.

It was a public event at the Sourthern Center for International Studies in Atlanta on May 4th, 2006. That particular example of poor judgment is primarily what disturbs me (as it relates to this post). Most of the time we just don’t see it, because it’s extremely rare for them to accept unprepared questions regarding this topic (which is another thing that disturbs me).

It doesn’t sound like he was too worried about threats from the crowd, despite their irrational behavior, so I’d much rather see him allowed to ask the question and press for a real answer, which I still don’t think he got.

McGovern’s response to the protective clothing BS was spot on, and illustrated what a lame answer it was. The fact that the troops take understandable precautions illustrates absolutely nothing about the issue at hand. Firstly, they’re going to wear protective clothing even if there’s a small chance of chemical weapons being present. That absolutely cannot be used as evidence that the administration honestly believed that they were there. Furthermore, if that were the case, the how about if the administration ordered the troops to wear radiation suits? Does that mean that they had nukes? Lastly, it’s just plain silly; the whole point of the argument is that the administration is accused of being deceitful, so (if that were the case) of course they would follow through with their deception by having the troops act accordingly. His argument makes no sense.

By: nstryker

nstryker — Wed, 14 Mar 2007 17:24:45 +0000

i think rumsfeld had good answers, especially with his point about the troups wearing protective clothing. we (as a nation) went through this with the clinton/monica thing too: stating something which is untrue is not necessarily lying. you have to believe that the untruth is not true and intend to deceive. i don’t believe rumsfeld lied and showing that he said one thing and then disproving it doesn’t make him a liar.

as far as the public silencing, i’m not sure where the q&a took place, but i assume it was a private event (not a press conference) and that means it wasn’t a public silencing. the goon squad acting simply reflects poor judgment (which we already knew they had in spades). besides, the way the audience was responding, it was probably in mcgovern’s own best interest to remove him from a situation that could quickly escalate into violence.

just trying to offer some perspective.