He wanted me to post this here for him.
http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/

Obviously, there's something wrong with the way the Bush administration handled the situation with Iraq. Only an idiot would like Sadaam Hussein, but I don't like Dave Matthews either, and you don't see me bombing his house. Anyway, this video is a real thinker. I'd be interested to see a Conservative's reaction to the video itself, not to peoples' opinion on Bush, the war itself, or anything else not directly pertaining to the evidence in hand. Is this the way we want our country to be run?

I would have called this thread "Bush loses election (Good News!)," but a) I'd be sinking to the level of a moron, and b) I don't want to jinx the election.

There hasn't been enough stuff like this done in the past few years. It's easy to catch people in lies like that, you just need someone to do their homework. I hope we get more critical of the government- they SHOULD be answering to the public, they should have to justify themselves.
Anyway, great video.

well said...

All the quotes from the time of the Clinton Administration refer to weapons programmes. We now know for sure that he had such programmes. So no score there.

What you have shown is that a load of Democrats later jumped on the 'Iraq is an immediate threat' bandwagon, presumably both for cynical political reasons and because they foolishly trusted the Bush adminstration. They don't come off looking well at all, but...

How does this in any way excuse Rumsfeld a) either lying about Iraq or making a very irresponsible error of judgment and b) quite clearly lying now in order to cover his tracks?

This was the point of the thread. Address it.

Yes, those deal with weapons programs that we now know he had. And did you notice how I asked you to deal with the evidence in hand, instead of going elsewhere with it and pointing your finger at something else? Interesting that you cannot seem to do that when the heat is on. Would've even been nice to hear "yeah, Rumsfeld fucked up." I have no problem admitting Clinton fucked up on many an occasion.

I know you said it. However, before you said it, you had about 20 pages pages of stuff meant to take Rumsfeld's gaffe out of the spotlight. That's your method, though.

You also pointed out the hypocrisy and lack of logic used by the right. Were you to have made that list out prior to this thread, we'd come right back at you with evidence like that video.

Make that 273 quotes.

Hypocrisy? Well, I don't personally support any political party, and no one here has praised the Democrats, so where is the hypocrisy. The problem with your reasoning is that you see everything as bipolar, with the assumption that an attack on Rumsfeld automatically means that someone is supporting the Democrats, and with the assumption that poor behaviour by one party is in some way mitigated by poor behaviour by the other. Neither assumption is correct. There is no hypocrisy. Your posts are irrelevant.

Well said Arty. Somebody finally put him in is place.

Yes, good post. I was about to explain that I am not personaly "the left" and as such, pointing out any shortcomings of someone who JLB sees as part of "the left" does not do anything to discredit anything.

This is untrue. He will die before he doesn't have some shit to spew.

....
JLB, that wouldn't be hypocrisy.

That is the essence of your most common fallacy. It's an automatic assumption for you. It shouldn't be.

But, even if they are extremely swift Democrats, it makes no difference to the charges levelled at Rumsfeld. They are still valid. If you want to defend Rumsfeld you have to argue on that point, or if not then you have to concede that he's now lying.

But the Democrats weren't the subject, and many of us won't argue that they lied or were misinformed. The initial subject was Rumsfeld, and he lied or was misinformed. The Democrat quotes don't change that.

And the 5 main administration officials made at least 237 'gaffes'. I'd like to see the numbers on everyone else.

what's a rapid democrat?

lol... perhaps he meant 'rabid'.

In which case it would be:
an adherent of democracy who goes to extreme lengths in expressing or pursuing a feeling, interest, or opinion. Well, literally anyway.

What is the list of 237 statements of Iraq posing a clear and immediate threat then?

Mispoke, huh? Sounds like a liberal PC bullshit answer. Back when I was a conservative, we didn't use euphamisms, we just called them lies.