In 2004, Rumsfeld slips:
The following was not heard because it wasn't reported widely (for reasons- see below). Compare the transcripts from the 2004 Press Conference with this Sunday's (Nov. 20, 2005) appearance by Sec. Rumsfeld on "This Week" (below).
In 2004, Sec. Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter about all of the various reasons that we went to Iraq, why we continued to stay, and asked a question about the acceptance of Saddam staying in power without WMD's:
Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir -- you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the U.N. resolutions, there would have been no war.
Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.
Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly -- and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not -- (Laughter.) -- in his case, if he would have opened up the country, let the U.N. come in, the United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of mass destruction, he would have still been in power today, correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position -- or you chose the word of the "position" -- vis-Ã-vis no war, Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to remove him.
Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is -- the world is fortunate, the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate, that he's not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what took place in that country has to feel the same way.
Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that's just a fact, just like -- I mean, what will Libya look like two, four, five years from now"
There would have been no war... If he had let the U.N. come in" (see CNN, FOX, and other reports as to why they- the inspectors- left).
Today (feeding the media):
As one works towards getting back to the present, hopefully with the timing and words of the pundits, the quotes from officials, and most importantly, Sec. Rumsfeld's statement in mind, consider the new/old argument (given as though the questions were answered prior to war and discounting Rumsfeld's statement and other facts) and consider Rumsfeld's new statement:
On November 11, 2005, the Washington Post published a piece written by national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley under the title of, "Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in Iraq".
Hadley noted that the presidential commission, led by retired judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said it found no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence. But the panel was not allowed to examine how policymakers used the information.
On 11/15/2005 USA TODAY published an article called, "WMD not only reason" Iraq - and the world - much safer without Saddam by J.D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser to the president. In it he states:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
