Rumsfeld caught in a lie

by Elsewhere 42 Replies latest social current

• 

  Thirdson

  I guess it was one of those "unknowns" that were not known to be unknowns at the time as opposed to the unknowns that were known about.

  3rd
• 

  blacksheep

  It's always good to put things in context. Let's remember that Clinton's lie was about his (and one other person's) sex life, in answer to questioning from sub-human right-wing religiously fanatical non-patriot pimples-on-the-ass-of-America who should not have been questioning him about his sex life in the first place.

  But you're right, he shouldn't have lied.

  As I've said in other posts, LIES by their very nature, are defined as a KNOWN intent to deceive. Acting upon best known intel at the time to make decisions about national security is VERY different from knowing you engaged in oral and anal sex in the oval office and then LIED about it. That's intent. The guy got caught with his pants down. And believe me, I thought the whole unsavory issue was lurid, and we were given TOO much info.

  So, my point is, when you throw around the term LIE, you'd better be able to back it up. You (and others) seem to be suggesting that Bush/Rumsfeld, et al, KNEW that Saddam was absolutely no threat to the US, to the world. EVERYONE felt this guy was a threat, and he WAS. That's a very, very different scenario from someone who knows exactly what he did and then lied about it, to the American public, to his wife (yeah, right...she lied as well).
• 

  Panda

  Good grief, so Rumsfeld may have lied, and maybe not. Nothing about 9/11 will prove more dispicable than the previous 8 years of "diplomatic" ass kissing to Arab nations and wacko's. The only reason all of this bi-partisan s*it is happening and everyone wants their team to be "righteous" is because this is an election year.

  So all of this showmanship will just get some third party person (Ralph?) a bunch of votes which would've gone to John Kerry. C'est le vie.

  And if we're going to dredge up the Clinton "it was just sex between 2 people" plea, well that's not true. The young woman could've been his daughter, yes daughter which makes Clinton a pedophile. And the fact that everyone knew about the oval office blow jobs well it's undignified and un-endearing. exPres Clinton certainly did exude charisma... he's smart and goodlooking and hell being President of the only superpower is a bit heady (forgive the pun). What 8 yr old wouldn't fall for him?

  Today I'm more interested in the Canadian support of Castro --- is that true? I hope not but maybe it's true and maybe it's not?
• 

  Satanus

  Wasn't chelsie younger than whats her name? Pedophilia is quite a stretch, don't you think? Not that i'm a clinton fan. Hell, you should see the dirt i collected on him.
  

  What kind of canadian support for castro were we talking about? Suspenders, dependz, brillcream, buying his cigars? Please, you've gotta be more specific.

  Good spin, btw

  SS

  Ps, the reason this is a big deal is because it was made a big deal by bush and company. Lets call it the 'we didn't say iraq was an imminent threat' doctrine.
• 

  talesin

  My question to you, blacksheep, is why did you bring Clinton into the discussion ? I thought that administration was over ? Is not Bush the current President ? Clinton's 'sexcapades' have nothing to do with this discussion, anymore than do Thomas Jefferson's or JFK's.

  imo, you are just being inflammatory, and not for the first time.

  panda

  Yes, Canada has a friendly relationship with Cuba. We have a fairly large community of Cuban refugees here in my city, they are lovely people. And Lloyd Axworthy (who is currently the special envoy appointed by the UN to negotiate the conflict in Eretria) locked horns with the US over Cuban policy when he was our Foreign Affairs Minister. This was several years ago, so I'm not 'brushed up' on the details.

  My understanding is that the US said anyone who deals with Cuba will be sanctioned (not UN approved) and Axworthy basically said "you are not the boss of us, we will do what WE please". Similar to the way Chretien dealt with Bush over the Iraqi invasion. That's the basics from my understanding. We have our own sovereignty, and are not subject to American rule, so we can, for example, buy Cuban cigars legally in Canada.

  I don't have enough knowledge (historical and current) to comment on where I stand on the Cuban issue, but now that my interest has been piqued, I think I'll do a little reading. It will be interesting to see how this mess got started, probably goes back a couple hundred years like Haiti.

  talesin
• 

  talesin

  Here is the link for the story:

  www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/january97/canada_1-23.html

  This was in 1997, the same year that Axworthy was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

  In a nutshell, "the story was about the so-called Helms-Burton Act, which was sponsored by Chairman Helms. That law imposes sanctions on foreign companies doing business in Cuba on property that was once American until expropriated by the Castro government". (quoted from PBS website)

  Excerpt:

  MARGARET WARNER: It was the highest level Canadian visit to Cuba since 1976. At the end of the visit the two ministers issued a joint declaration, pledging cooperation on issues ranging from foreign investment to human rights. President Clinton and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee both reacted to the Canadian visit.

  PRESIDENT CLINTON: My reaction is I?m gratified that the Canadians, along with the Europeans, are now talking more to the Cubans about human rights and democratic reforms. I?m skeptical, frankly, that will--that the recent discussions between the Canadians and the Cubans will lead to advances. I believe that our policy is the proper one, but I?m glad that the Canadians are trying to make something good happen in Cuba.

  SENATOR JESSE HELMS, (R-NC): We had a fellow named Neville Chamberlain.He went over and sat down with Hitler and came back and said we can do business with this guy. And you saw what happened, as one guy stood up and said, no, no. His name was Winston Churchill. Well, if we?re going to forget all principle and let Fidel Castro get by with all of his atrocities; that we?d better look at the status by our principles, and Canada certainly should look at hers.

  MARGARET WARNER: This week?s joint declaration also called for unspecified cooperation between Canada and Cuba to combat the most recent anti-Cuban measure adopted by the U.S., the so-called Helms-Burton Act, which was sponsored by Chairman Helms. That law imposes sanctions on foreign companies doing business in Cuba on property that was once American until expropriated by the Castro government. Foreign Minister Axworthy joins us now from Ottawa. Welcome, Mr. Minister.

  LLOYD AXWORTHY, Foreign Minister, Canada: Nice to be here. Thank you.

  MARGARET WARNER: What was the purpose of your visit to Cuba and the agreement?

  LLOYD AXWORTHY: Well, I think it was to follow through on an engagement to see if we could help assist in changes taking place in that country, to open up a dialogue on human rights issues, and to provide for more protection on the business investments going in. We?re now negotiating a foreign investment protection agreement for our businesses. So it had a wide range, but it was primarily to open up a dialogue to see if we can support and produce changes that would open the system up.

  MARGARET WARNER: Well, you heard President Clinton and also Sen. Helms, President Clinton saying he was skeptical that your kind of engagement can really make any difference in Cuba. Do you see any evidence to the contrary? You obviously believe to the contrary, but why?

  LLOYD AXWORTHY: Well, we started with an invitation from the Cubans to hold a series of discussions. And during those discussions over the past several months we put on the table that they would have to take into account human rights questions. They agreed to do that. We have now established some very concrete measures. We will be sending officials down next month from the Department of Foreign Affairs, our Justice Department, to have a direct exchange with Cuba about human rights issues as it relates to the U.N., as it relates bilaterally. That?s an important beginning. We have also agreed to sponsor a major meeting on children and women?s rights that will take place in Cuba in April. We?ve started working with them on the establishment of a commission for citizens? grievances that can provide transparent due process for citizens? complaints. Those are small changes, but they?re a beginning. They?re an important start. And, you know, when I was in Cuba, I met with a number of NGO?s who said--

  MARGARET WARNER: Those are non-governmental organizations.

  LLOYD AXWORTHY: I?m sorry.

  MARGARET WARNER: Charitable.

  LLOYD AXWORTHY: That?s right--church organizations and others who said they have seen over the last three or four years a broadening of the space in which they can operate; that they felt it was very important to have the international community support that work, to have a country like Canada in there trying to help develop that space and to provide some clear rules by which it could take place. And that?s how you?re going to get change in Cuba, not the kind of cataclysmic changes like Mr. Helms wants, but a peaceful transition. And that?s what we want to promote.

  MARGARET WARNER: Well, Mr. Minister, at least to most Americans this is--Cuba is still a country where if the government would let them, tens of thousands of people would flee immediately for the United States. I guess it just seems difficult to believe that there are really substantive changes going on there. Did you see any yourself?

  LLOYD AXWORTHY: Well, one thing that?s happened that maybe there has to be more analysis or thought given to is that once Cuba found itself severed from its close connections with the old Soviet Union it had to adapt. The Soviet Union is its biggest market, is its customer, its creditor. It?s had to make major changes. It?s now into a dollar economy. It has some free markets starting in the agricultural areas. It is inviting all kinds of foreign investment. Those are kind of strategies the United States? follows with other countries. Let?s start with these openings and then get into major dialogues. We?ve agreement now to start helping to train judges and legal officers. I believe that there are some changes taking place. I can?t predict where they?ll go, but at least it?s worth making an effort to promote them, and as the President said, let?s engage. He may be skeptical, but, as you know, we?ve differed over the last 30 years about the U.S. and Canadian approaches. We feel our way will be more effective. But I think as long as we can maintain a healthy respect for our differences on this approach we may be able to see some real changes with Cuba, and I think that will also help in the hemisphere. I don?t think anybody would gain by having a huge upheaval in Cuba over a period of time I think working towards peaceful transition, much more effective.
• 

  talesin

  And the resolution (Clinton backed down, suspended the Act)

  www.useu.be/ISSUES/cuba0015.html

  Date : January 15, 2000

  U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
  Office of the Spokesman
  
  FACT SHEET
  The President's Title III Decision
  January 2000
  
  Presidential Decision
  
  President Clinton has suspended for an additional six months, effective February 1, 2000, the provision of the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act that allows U.S. nationals with claims to confiscated property in Cuba to file suit under Title III of the Act. In accordance with the Act, the President certified that a suspension is necessary to the national interest and will expedite a transition to democracy in Cuba. He has reported his determination to the appropriate Congressional committees. In reaching this decision, the President cited important continuing actions by our friends and allies to promote democracy in Cuba.
  
  The President allowed Title III to enter into force on August 1, 1996, but suspended for six months the provision that would permit American nationals to bring suit against persons trafficking in confiscated properties in Cuba claimed by a U.S. national. He did so in order to work with our friends and allies to develop a multilateral approach to advance democracy, human rights and fundamental freedoms in Cuba. The President tasked the Department of State to undertake a new effort to develop international support for democracy and human rights in Cuba. Senior State Department officials met with leaders throughout Europe and Latin America from all sectors -- government, politics, private sector, labor, religion, and human rights -- to forge this new multilateral movement. While there remains substantial disagreement about the best approach to bring democracy to Cuba, all recognize that Cuba must undertake democratic change and respect human rights.
  
  In January 1997, the President cited significant progress in the development of the multilateral initiative and renewed the suspension for another six months in order to consolidate and further develop the multilateral approach. At that time, he said he would expect to continue to suspend the Title III lawsuit provision as long as our friends and allies continue their efforts to promote a transition to democracy in Cuba. In July 1997, January 1998, July 1998, January 1999, and July 1999, the President noted additional concrete steps to promote democracy and human rights when he announced additional six-month suspensions.
• 

  Yerusalyim

  The Rumsfeld thing...this is the most shocking incident...my GOD I'm gonna rush out and sign up to be a democrat.
• 

  Pleasuredome

  .... just the one?
• 

  blacksheep

  My question to you, blacksheep, is why did you bring Clinton into the discussion ? I thought that administration was over ? Is not Bush the current President ? Clinton's 'sexcapades' have nothing to do with this discussion, anymore than do Thomas Jefferson's or JFK's.

  imo, you are just being inflammatory, and not for the first time.

  Inflammatory to whom? Poor Willy? LOL!

  Sorry you seem to be unable to see obvious inconsisenties in the why "lies" are defined, and are being quite inconsistent in determining who is a "lying scumbad" and who is not. This discussion started as "look who was caught in a lie...! To say THAT with a straight face while decrying our bringing up any OTHER lies during presidential administrations is the height of hypocracy.