[yakkiebah]

a smackdown for rummie

[Spliffdaddy]

*yawn*

his last answer was hacked-off in mid-sentence.

wtf.

[Logic]

: grabs cola and popcorn :

[angaq0k]

spin-o-rama-be-bop-a-lula

yehyeh!

[Troll]

Ouch! That IS embarassing.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld - Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq on 18 Sept 2002

You can find the full transcript at http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...8-secdef2.html

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Ouch! That IS embarassing.

"No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Donald Rumsfeld - Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee regarding Iraq on 18 Sept 2002

What he actually said:

There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In context it is a comparative statement. To paraphrase:- Of these terrorist states, the worst and most dangerous is Iraq.


It's traditional to change the case of the first letter when you chop words out of a sentence. Your N in "No" should have been "[N]o." Of course, if you were honest and did that, it would have given away that the sentence did not in fact begin with No. It began with But, which indicated a companion sentence deleted by you.

How desperate do you have to be to chop a statement up to try to change the meaning? Pretty desperate, I guess. I'll give you Maureen Dowd's e-mail address. You can take lessons from her.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How desparate do you have to be to chop a statement up to try to change the meaning? Pretty desparate, I guess. I'll give you Maureen Dowd's e-mail address. You can take lessons from her.

Desperately chopped or taken in whole, it's still unsubstantiated and rank hyperbole.

Shouldn't this be over in the "conspiracy theory" thread?

[yakkiebah]

I think i know who's desparate...

[Zimphire]

"Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

"Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."

[Nicko]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What he actually said:



In context it is a comparative statement. To paraphrase:- Of these terrorist states, the worst and most dangerous is Iraq.


It's traditional to change the case of the first letter when you chop words out of a sentence. Your N in "No" should have been "[N]o." Of course, if you were honest and did that, it would have given away that the sentence did not in fact begin with No. It began with But, which indicated a companion sentence deleted by you.

How desperate do you have to be to chop a statement up to try to change the meaning? Pretty desperate, I guess. I'll give you Maureen Dowd's e-mail address. You can take lessons from her.

Well, what he 'actually' said could be construded as more damning than the chopped quote

Translation.... "of all those terrorist states, Iraq is the easiest to conquer . Yadda yadda yadda and then there is the oil."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Well, what he 'actually' said could be construded as more damning than the chopped quote

"Construded"? Maybe extruded.

His words aren't a sausage to be moulded to fit your prejudices. He said what he said.

[kvm_mkdb]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He said what he said.

Yeah! And what he said is:

"The threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction will be removed."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03

"Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03

"I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month...So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?"
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02

"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
In context it is a comparative statement. To paraphrase:- Of these terrorist states, the worst and most dangerous is Iraq.

How desperate do you have to be to chop a statement up to try to change the meaning? Pretty desperate, I guess. I'll give you Maureen Dowd's e-mail address. You can take lessons from her.

Oh you make me laugh! You'll do anything to protect them won't you?

I think you're misunderstanding what's embarassing here. Did you watch the video? What's embarassing is that Rumsfeld says that he never used the phrase "immediate threat." And then the interviewer quotes him having used that phrase. Your argument about it being comparative is irrelevant. The simple question is did he or did he not use the phrase "immediate threat." Please Simey, you can see him physically squirming when he realises his mistake. There's a substantive question as to whether the absence of WMD means that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat and comparative statements are relevant to that question, but that is not the issue here.

"Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went... "
Rumsfeld in the video

There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
Rumsfeld's testimony

PS I took the quote from the transcript of the video not from the testimony. The transcript is here and it didn't include the "But", so it wasn't *me* who purposefully mislead you! In any event, the "but" makes no difference. All you need to quote in fact is "immediate threat" because Rumsfeld denied ever using the phrase!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh you make me laugh! You'll do anything to protect them won't you?

Just as you'll do anything to defame him.

[Troll]

dp

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Just as you'll do anything to defame him.

Obviously you don't know what defamation is. Ask Simey to explain to you why this couldn't possibly be defamation.

Hint: have a look at why Lord Jeffrey Archer went to jail.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
You should look terms up before you use. Ask Simey to explain the relationship between defamation and truth to you.

I know what defame means. And you indeed would lie about Bush to make him look bad.

That is MHO.

Isn't that what you are accusing Simey of doing?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I know what defame means. And you indeed would lie about Bush to make him look bad.

This thread is about Rumsfeld. Pay attention.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Isn't that what you are accusing Simey of doing?

Simey, just so you know, I don't believe you would lie to make anyone look bad.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Oh you make me laugh! You'll do anything to protect them won't you?

I think you're misunderstanding what's embarassing here. Did you watch the video?

No I didn't. It's in windows media, which I don't have.

I'm baffled why Rummy should squirm. There is nothing critical about the use of the phrase immediate threat, especially not in the context in which he used it, which was clearly comparative. Of course, he may not thave remembered everything he has said and his word choices in all circumstances, especially when words he said about A are misquoted about being about B.

What Rummy said was " But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq." This is a comparative statement about the closed set of countries he listed in the first (deliberately snipped) half of the statement. In contrast, had he said "Iraq ia an immediate threat" then that would be a declarative and absolute (not comparative) statement about Iraq.

Whether or not he ever used the word immediate in proximity to the word threat is immaterial when the totality of the statements are so different. That's why the quote had to be rearranged to make him say what he wasn't saying. That's an underhanded and misleading argument. It's also a little pathetic. It's obvious that what people are doing is looking for the term of art "Imminent threat." Since they can't find it, they look for any use of the word "threat" coupled with any word begining with "im-" regardless of context or what was actually intended by the use of the words. .

I'm sorry, no Aha! here. The quote was deliberately mangled and taken out of context. That's a dishonest and unethical way to argue. I don't know why you would endorse an argument like that.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Troll:
Simey, just so you know, I don't believe you would lie to make anyone look bad.

Oh you make me laugh! You'll do anything to protect them won't you?

No you said he would do anything to make him look GOOD.

But I will take it for granted you mean he wouldn't lie to do that either.

So we can come to the conclusion that Simey indeed, speaks the truth.

[Logic]

Simey.

Why didn't Rummy just say "There is no country in the world that could become a more immediate threat in the future" or "But Iraq poses the biggest threat of them all"?

This is what all of us have been claiming all along. The play with words to make the threat look more serious than it really was. And I still don't get how Iraq could ever be considered a threat to the US. They couldn't even reach Israel with their missiles.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Simey.

Why didn't Rummy just say "There is no country in the world that could become a more immediate threat in the future" or "But Iraq poses the biggest threat of them all"?

This is what all of us have been claiming all along. The play with words to make the threat look more serious than it really was. And I still don't get how Iraq could ever be considered a threat to the US. They couldn't even reach Israel with their missiles.

I have no idea why any individual uses the exact phraseology they use. I just know that it is unethical and underhanded to claim that they said something they did not say, and then to rearrange their words or take them out of context to "prove" that they said something.

I know that you have been claiming things regarding Rummy for a long time. But claims aren't proof. So far, the only proof you have is proof that has been fabricated.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Whether or not he ever used the word immediate in proximity to the word threat is immaterial when the totality of the statements are so different. That's why the quote had to be rearranged to make him say what he wasn't saying. That's an underhanded and misleading argument. It's also a little pathetic. It's obvious that what people are doing is looking for the term of art "Imminent threat." Since they can't find it, they look for any use of the word "threat" coupled with any word begining with "im-".

I'm sorry, no Aha! here. The quote was deliberately mangled and taken out of context. That's a dishonest and unethical way to argue.

I have new respect for you now that I know that you don't have WMP . You should get a look at the video though. The guy really is shaken by this.

I think you have a point on the substance of the question. If he'd just answered the question then I think he'd have been fine, because he could have listed reasons for saying that Iraq was an immediate and imminent threat (note kvm_mkdb showed that he has used both terms) irrespective of whether there were WMD.

But that's irrelevant here. What I think this shows is Rummie's agressive style. He climbs into the interviewer basically accusing CBS and some others of revisionism; of misquoting the government to create false "folklore." That's the accusation they respond to and they score maximum points on their smackdown. This is really typical of Rummie's style. He is very aggressive and very generous with the truth.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have no idea why any individual uses the exact phraseology they use. I just know that it is unethical and underhanded to claim that they said something they did not say, and then to rearrange their words or take them out of context to "prove" that they said something.

I know that you have been claiming things regarding Rummy for a long time. But claims aren't proof. So far, the only proof you have is proof that has been fabricated.

This is just too fun! You've been claiming for so long that they have used this and that phraseology because of the legal ramifications of the words. Now you say you don't know. This isn't fabricated, he could have used a lot of different terms than that. He said no other nation poses a more immediate threat than Iraq. That is of all the the other immediate threats, no nation is more immediate than Iraq. That is what he said. That Iraq is the most immediate threat. Not that they could be in the future but that they were at that point the most immediate threat.

But please continue defending it, it's fun as hell to watch.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
He climbs into the interviewer basically accusing CBS and some others of revisionism; of misquoting the government to create false "folklore."

Yep, that's pretty much what parts of the media have been doing. When the media start manipulating the news instead of reporting it, it is perfectly appropriate to call them on it. I just wish that there were more articulate spokespersons like Rumsfeld willing to take them down a notch or two.

Are we agreed then that this supposed smoking gun is nothing of the sort?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:


This is just too fun! You've been claiming for so long that they have used this and that phraseology because of the legal ramifications of the words. Now you say you don't know. This isn't fabricated, he could have used a lot of different terms than that. He said no other nation poses a more immediate threat than Iraq. That is of all the the other immediate threats, no nation is more immediate than Iraq. That is what he said. That Iraq is the most immediate threat. Not that they could be in the future but that they were at that point the most immediate threat.

But please continue defending it, it's fun as hell to watch.

He listed a group of countries that he (and everyone else) considers to be threatening. The question is where do you begin, and in what order to you rank them. He said in effect that Iraq was the most pressing one -- the most immediate threat. The one that he put first on the list. That's all he said.

He could have gone on to say that Iceland was a much, much, less immediate threat, and that therefore, he thought it prudent to deal with Iraq and North Korea before Iceland. But he didn't. He just discussed the countries on his short list, and ranked one above the others.

You do realize that he is the Secretary of Defense, right? Considering threats is his job.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I have no idea why any individual uses the exact phraseology they use. I just know that it is unethical and underhanded to claim that they said something they did not say, and then to rearrange their words or take them out of context to "prove" that they said something.

Sorry, am I missing something here? What is Rummie falsely accused of saying? Can you articulate precisely where in this thread you think he's been misrepresented?

Can you just confirm that your argument is that "No one is more of an immediate threat than Iraq" doesn't necessarily mean "Iraq is an immediate threat." Kind of like "No apple is more green than a Granny Smith," doesn't mean "A Granny Smith is green."

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... articulate spokespersons like Rumsfeld ...

LOL. Is that a "known known"?

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
But claims aren't proof.

I heard that, brother.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Sorry, am I missing something here? What is Rummie falsely accused of saying?

Yes, you are missing something. What Rummy is being accused of is what Logic has been talking about. There has been a persistent idea that the Administration argued that Iraq was an imminent threat, although the Administration specifically stated that this was not so. Having failed to prove that, the hunt is on for words that (as Tim Russert likes to put it) gave the impression that Iraq was an imminent threat even if they never used that key phrase. Hence this misquote.

The problem is that in context, Rumsfeld did not say anything that can be so construed. He made a comparative statement about a series of countries on a short list of threats. That's a different matter.

The question isn't the logical syntax, it's the context. In his testimony, that Iraq deserved to be in the list of countries that were a threat wasn't being asserted, it was assumed by both Rumsfeld, and his questioners. What Rumsfeld addressed was where on the list of threats it fell, not whether it was a threat. He said it was more immediate than the others. Do you see the difference now?

[daimoni]

.

[dgs212]

Maybe I'm missing something, but where does the administration switch between "immediate threat" in the context of comparative ranking, and "immediate threat" the term of art that justifies pre-emptive military action? If they are now saying that they meant Iraq posed the most immediate threat of a group of countries all along, rtaher than the term of art "immediate threat," then why was military action justified? They can't have it both ways. Either:

A. they meant the specific legal definition of "immediate threat" and felt they were justified in their use of force, which would mean that they are now lying about what they said AND they were wrong about Iraq (poor intelligence?)

OR

B. they did not mean the specific legal definition of "immediate threat," as they now claim, and were thus not legally justified in their use of force but did it anyway.

Which is worse?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What Rumsfeld addressed was where on the list of threats it fell, not whether it was a threat. He said it was more immediate than the others. Do you see the difference now?

I do see your point in a grand context, but I think on the specific question of whether Rumsfeld said that Iraq was an immediate threat or not, you have an extraordinarily weak case. It seems to me Rumsfeld was addressing where on the list of IMMEDIATE threats Iraq came. To me (and I'll bet to everyone else in the room at the time) it seems clear that he is more than one of those "terrorist nations" (another misrepresentation) are IMMEDIATE threats but Iraq is MORE IMMEDIATE than any of the others.

Look at it again: "But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

At the very least that creates an onus on Rumsfeld to follow it up with a "Which is not to say that Iraq IS an immediate threat." Besides, if Rumsfeld was using the Apple logic that I alluded to, then why didn't he say that in the interview? Why does he fumble and blush and sway around like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar.

Look, he screwed up here. He should have just answered the question and said we believed at the time that they were an immediate threat. It his aggressive style that got him into trouble here.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I do see your point in a grand context, but I think on the specific question of whether Rumsfeld said that Iraq was an immediate threat or not, you have an extraordinarily weak case. It seems to me Rumsfeld was addressing where on the list of IMMEDIATE threats Iraq came. To me (and I'll bet to everyone else in the room at the time) it seems clear that he is more than one of those "terrorist nations" (another misrepresentation) are IMMEDIATE threats but Iraq is MORE IMMEDIATE than any of the others.

Look at it again: "But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."

At the very least that creates an onus on Rumsfeld to follow it up with a "Which is not to say that Iraq IS an immediate threat." Besides, if Rumsfeld was using the Apple logic that I alluded to, then why didn't he say that in the interview? Why does he fumble and blush and sway around like a kid with his hand in the cookie jar.

Look, he screwed up here. He should have just answered the question and said we believed at the time that they were an immediate threat. It his aggressive style that got him into trouble here.

As I said, the fact that Iraq and the other countries mentioned were (and for the remaining ones, still are) was a given. Whether or not they were a threat wasn't being discussed. What was being discussed was the order that you put them in. It's wrong to extrapolate from that discussion the issue of whether or not Iraq should have been on the list at all. That's not what was being discussed.

The weak argument here is the one that says this is significant. You are pointing to a discussion about subject A. At first you claimed he was talking about B. Now you admit that the conversation quoted was about A not B. So you exclaim, "See, he didn't talk about B." That's just whipsawing.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What was being discussed was the order that you put them in.

So, he could have said, "But no terrorist state is a bigger defender of human rights than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," and according to your argument that would not have been an allegation that is a defender of human rights, it's merely an argument as to order.

Come on Simey. This is ridiculous now. Rumsfeld said that Iraq was an immediate threat to US security and he said it before The House Armed Services Committee Regarding Iraq. It would behove him now to stand up for what he said rather than deny he ever said it!

[Altix]

What Rummie has said, is not just in that interview, it's his, Bush's and the rest of their words over the course of a year that is the issue too. It's a muddle, and Rummie has been caught, once again, at a loss as to what he actually has said.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
So, he could have said, "But no terrorist state is a bigger defender of human rights than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq," and according to your argument that would not have been an allegation that is a defender of human rights, it's merely an argument as to order.

Come on Simey. This is ridiculous now. Rumsfeld said that Iraq was an immediate threat to US security and he said it before The House Armed Services Committee Regarding Iraq. It would behove him now to stand up for what he said rather than deny he ever said it!

No, he could have said here are some bad countries: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Sudan. No bad country is worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban. That would be fairly parallel. Rumsfeld listed a closed set and then ranked them. Nothing more.

And no, once again, please stop changing what he said. He didn't say it was an immediate threat. He said of the threats listed, it was the most immediate. There is a difference.

[Altix]

Well, the Republican defenders don't mind arguing over their shifting sands statements, it's part and parcel of re-inforcing a quite deluded belief in what they are peddling as justice, and reasons for illegal war.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Altix:
Well, the Republican defenders don't mind arguing over their shifting sands statements, it's part and parcel of re-inforcing a quite deluded belief in what they are peddling as justice, and reasons for illegal war.

Distorting quotes is a shifting sands argument. Or maybe a quicksand one.

[Altix]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

And no, once again, please stop changing what he said. He didn't say it was an immediate threat. He said of the threats listed, it was the most immediate. There is a difference.

Let's take your word at fac value here, and ignore what Rummie has said in the past. Iraq was the most serious threat, how is that? Wouldn't a N. Koread threatening to nuke the US be considered more serious? Also, what is the most immediate in relation to? American interests? Even that doesn't add up properly.

So, it's not about an immediate threat to 'World' security, but the US' which in that case, the Iraq example is just poor choice, IMO.

[Altix]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Distorting quotes is a shifting sands argument. Or maybe a quicksand one.

Pretending that some quotes were never said, or were said differently, is just as devious.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Altix:
Let's take your word at fac value here, and ignore what Rummie has said in the past. Iraq was the most serious threat, how is that? Wouldn't a N. Koread threatening to nuke the US be considered more serious? Also, what is the most immediate in relation to? American interests? Even that doesn't add up properly.

So, it's not about an immediate threat to 'World' security, but the US' which in that case, the Iraq example is just poor choice, IMO.

I don't mind you debating the conclusions the Administration and Congress took. That's a legitimate debate about policy. What I object to is this pathetic attempt at gotcha! journalism and its reliance on selective, out of context misquotation.

Argue honestly and maturely and the Bush Administration's critics wouldn't come across as so kooky and grossly partisan. That goes especially for journalists who ought to be following some sense of professional ethics.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
No, he could have said here are some bad countries: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and Sudan. No bad country is worse than Afghanistan under the Taliban. That would be fairly parallel. Rumsfeld listed a closed set and then ranked them. Nothing more.

And no, once again, please stop changing what he said. He didn't say it was an immediate threat. He said of the threats listed, it was the most immediate. There is a difference.

Actually, since we're picking this exact statement of his to pieces as it is, that's not exactly what he said - at least not unambiguously so.

If we accept that his exact words were:

There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction -- Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria to name but a few. But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

- he does not specifically say that his naming of Iraq as an immediate thread is done in reference to the countries just listed.

The two can very well be seen as not entirely, but partially unrelated comments.

1) There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction; after which he names a few.

2) But no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people...

Seeing as he just defined "Iran, Libya North Korea, Syria, to name but a few" as "terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction", he is strictly speaking not comparing Iraq to them in his second statement, but to all terrorist states. And therefore saying that Iraq is not the most immediate threat of the ones he just listed, but the most immediate threat of all terrorist states.

In the same way, basically, as if I said, "There are some sorts of juices that have a very high level of sugar - grape juice, coconut juice, to name but a few. But no drink contains more sugar than Coke." (Okay, it's not the perfect example, but it's the best I could think of right now)

Whether or not this makes a big difference is another matter - how many "terrorist states" (with the meaning Rumsfield applies to this term) are not basically after nuclear weapons of mass destruction?

Bickering, yes, but semantically valid

(Stupid country, keeps wanting to be called Iraw instead of Iraq!)

[Altix]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I don't mind you debating the conclusions the Administration and Congress took. That's a legitimate debate about policy. What I object to is this pathetic attempt at gotcha! journalism and its reliance on selective, out of context misquotation.

Argue honestly and maturely and the Bush Administration's critics wouldn't come across as so kooky and grossly partisan. That goes especially for journalists who ought to be following some sense of professional ethics.

It goes both ways though, and not just for journalism. If the Politicians are seen to be underhand in their honesty, and some very basic truths distorted to a point in which the trust has vanished, then where lies the line for others to be honest?

I only have to watch FOX, or the Press Association in their deliverance of reoprts to the media to see the blatant twisting of facts, and many an interview taken out of context, and I mean this in the sense of Right-Wing, US foreign policy advocacy reports.

[Altix]

One more thought on this. Rummie is not exactly an elegant speaker. It's possible to sit there (and I have sat through his diatribe many a time in person), and listen to him stumble, and stutter his way through any discussion to the point he could be saying anything, and denying anything. It's no wonder he is dragged up for his many mistakes, and failure to communicate properly, because he says virtually anything that could be said, and wriggles his way out of it later when confronted with it.

I'm perfectly sure that Rummie has used the' Immediate threat' in it's many variations and contexts, trouble is, which one do we pick as being the sole one that he is really meaning?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
He said of the threats listed, it was the most immediate THREAT.

I added threat there because Rumsfeld used the words next to each other and so should you to be true to the quote. There is no difference I'm afraid between what Rumsfeld said and "Iraq is AN immediate threat." What Rumsfeld did not exclude was the possibility that others were immediate threats too, but he sure as hell said Iraq was an immediate threat.

It's a question of your famous categories Simey. In the category of immediate threats of which there are a number, the most immediate threat is Iraq. Iraq and everyone else in that category is still an immediate threat.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I added threat there because Rumsfeld used the words next to each other and so should you to be true to the quote. There is no difference I'm afraid between what Rumsfeld said and "Iraq is AN immediate threat. What Rumsfeld did not exclude was the possibility that others were immediate threats too, but he sure as hell said Iraq was an immediate threat.

It's a question of your famous categories Simey. In the category of immediate threats, the most immediate threat is Iraq. Everyone on that category is still an immediate threat.

Just because words are used next to one another does not mean they mean the same thing in different contexts. You are reading "immediate threat" as the same thing as "more immediate threat." More immediate threat only means something in the context of threats being ranked by their immediacy.

For example, if the list were: Iraq, China, North Korea, India and Iceland and I said that Iraq was the most immediate threat, does it follow that they all were immediate threats? Even Iceland?

Of course it doesn't. You are simply reading far too much into a simple use of comparative terminology -- probably because you were simply mislead by the journalistic distortion. In any case, the distortion has been established. That's really the end of the matter.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For example, if the list were: Iraq, China, North Korea, India and Iceland and I said that Iraq was the most immediate threat, does it follow that they all were immediate threats? Even Iceland?

Yes, actually, it does.

In Indo-European languages, regularly formed comparatives and superlatives presuppose positives, both in form and meaning.

If you say, "Russia is the biggest country in the world", that presupposes there are other countries in the world that are big.

If you say, "Out of the following countries: Russia, China, USA, England, San Marino, Russia is the biggest", it still presupposes that the second part of the comparison also possesses a certain amount of the value that the first part is attributed at possessing the greatest amount of; in other words, that the others are big too, just not as big as Russia.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of these terrorist states [Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria], the worst and most dangerous is Iraq.

Iraq was more dangerous than North Korea; a "rogue" nation known to be is possession of nuclear weapons and ICBMs and not under the same degree of scrutiny as Iraq was?