oops (http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/)

Don't worry about the site. The clip features also Thomas Friedman, so you could say it's fair and balanced out.

Just enjoy.

Almost makes you feel sorry for him. Almost.

I think it's pretty safe to say that Donald Rumsfeld isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. :D

It is nice how they cut the video before Rumsfeld can offer an explanation. A fair and balance source I am sure. :rolleyes:

That said, put your self back in 2002. We have watched Saddam defy the UN sanctions, destroy buildings that were scheduled for inspection, and infiltrate/turn individuals on the inspection teams.

I disagree with his statement of "No terror state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of out people and stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein", but only because I consider N. Korea to be a terror state.

Irregardless this is an obvious statement of opinion, not a statement of fact.

If he had stated, "Iraq poses an immediate treat
to (fill in the blank)", this would be a statement of fact, and I would expect to see some evidence that there were troops massing, weapons poised, or evidence of plans by terrorists that made Iraq complicit in the attack.

The fact is that he did not state that Iraq is an immediate threat in the context that is being implied, but that no one posed a GREATER immediate threat to security and stability. There is a difference.

My only reply to comments regarding the intelligence of Bush's administration is that they were apparently brighter than the best of the Democratic party in 2000. :D

I am sure that none of the Democrats, other than of course John Kerry (his are well documented), made any statements in 2002 that were not phrased in the best way possible, and that they all have perfect recall of every word they said well over a year ago. :rolleyes:

Darkwolf,

to say there is "no greater or more immediate threat...than the regime of Saddam Hussein" clearly states that the regime of Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat. There is no difference to say "Iraq poses an immediate threat..." unless you see a difference in the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq (and there is one, but I am not sure that is what you meant)

First, this has already been posted here: http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000749 so any further commentary can be directed there.

Second, saying Iraq poses no greater or more immediate threat to something is not the same as saying that Iraq is an immediate threat to that something.

Say the world was a peaceful place and everyone lived in harmony with eachother, so there existed nowhere any great or immediate threat. One could still say with complete accuracy that Iraq posed no greater or immediate threat to something. The reason is that even though Iraq posed absolutely NO threat whatsoever to anything in this scenario, nobody else did either, so there was indeed no greater or immediate threat than Iraq.

You're splitting hairs I can hear you saying. Perhaps, but when you're reading or listening to a debate or critique, you really do need to pay close attention to exactly what was and was not said to get an accurate understanding.