Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: Napalm
Originally posted by: bozack
the only one that was close was the second and even in that he never said that they directly posed an "immediate" threat, but rather no other nation poses as much of an immediate threat....if klinton can play semantics on the term relations and others what is so different about this...
Right - playing semantics when cornered about getting a blow job and lying to the world to start a false war are exactly the same...
honestly going by only those two statements alone I could hardly call it a blatant "lie", possibly an exxageration but even that is suspect.
"You and a few other critics are the only people i have heard use the phrase
immediate threat. I didn't, the president didn't, and it's kind of become folk lore that that's what happened." --Rumsfeld, lying, on meet the press during this video.
"No terror state poses a greater or more
immediate threat to the security of the world than the regime of saddam Hussein in Iraq."
-----Donald Rumsfeld, September 18, 2002, statement contradicting Rumsfeld on the video
Rumsfeld did, in fact, use the phrase,
immediate threat. In order to pose a greater or more
immediate threat than other "terror states" you MUST be an
immediate threat threat in the first place. If you can't see this then you are just a little Bush administration lackey who is willing to spout any contrived nonsense that bush co. is underhanded enough to put out. Give a break. I admit Clinton lied, why don't you admit that Rumsfeld is lying?
edit: heh, I just came up with my new sig,
Facebook
Twitter