Rummy lies! So says Dan Bartlett:

[babylonsister]

Can't wait to see all the factoids in the new book he's thinking of writing if the price is right. :eyes:

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/06/28/rumsfeld-v-bartlett/

Rumsfeld v. Bartlett.

Donald Rumsfeld, claiming he took the phrase “mission accomplished” out of a draft of President Bush’s speech:

“I took ‘Mission Accomplished’ out,” Rumsfeld said. “I was in Baghdad and I was given a draft of that thing and I just died. And I said, it’s too inclusive. And I fixed it and sent it back. They fixed the speech but not the sign.”

But Dan Bartlett says Rumsfeld is lying:

There was a comment Rumsfeld made in one of those books where he claimed that he took the phrase mission accomplished out of the speech itself but that he couldn’t get the banner pulled down. That’s just wrong. I went back and looked at every draft of the speech. That phrase was never in it.

[Solly Mack]

1. You'd think with all those safes for documents, they'd get a file cabinet for their lies

[Swamp Rat]

2. They need a warehouse-sized locker for all their lies,

and it still would be a tight fit.

[Solly Mack]

3. True. lol and it's not like they care how obvious it is they lie

[chaplainM]

4. Tony Snow continues to claim...

...that the White House had nothing to do with that banner.

[Disturbed]

5. The Busholini advance team didn't have it taken down though.

Rumsfailed is a War Criminal. Oh, yeah and he is a pathological liar just like Busholini.

Rumsfeld Shouldn't be Fired, He Should be Indicted
by Matthew Rothschild

“Secretary Rumsfeld has publicly admitted that . . . he ordered an Iraqi national held in Camp Cropper, a high security detention center in Iraq, to be kept off the prison’s rolls and not presented to the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the report noted. The Geneva Conventions require countries to grant the Red Cross access to all detainees. “

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0418-24.htm



Further Evidence Rumsfeld Implicated in War Crimes
Please read this important post by Marty Lederman, Army Confirms: Rumsfeld Authorized Criminal Conduct.

Here's a key section, but there's more:
The Army's charges against Jordan reflect the view, undoubtedly correct, that the use of forced nudity or intimidation with dogs against detainees subject to military control constitutes cruelty and maltreatment that Article 93 makes criminal. It doesn't matter whether they are or are not "torture," as such; nor does it matter whether the armed forces should be permitted to use such interrogation techniques: As things currently stand, they are unlawful, as even the Army now acknowledges.

But then how can we account for the actions of the Secretary of Defense and his close aides?

On November 27, 2002, Pentagon General Counsel William Haynes, following discussions with Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, General Myers, and Doug Feith, informed the Secretary of Defense that forced nudity and the use of the fear of dogs to induce stress were lawful techniques, and he recommended that they be approved for use at Guantanamo.
(The lists of techniques to which Haynes was referring can be found in this memorandum.) On December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld approved those techniques for use at Guantanamo -- and subsequently those techniques were used on detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani.

In other words, the Secretary of Defense authorized criminal conduct.

...

Today's Army charge under UCMJ Article 93 against Lt. Col. Jordan -- for conduct that the SecDef actually authorized as to some detainees -- demonstrates that Rumsfeld approved of, and encouraged, violations of the criminal law.

http://www.discourse.net/archives/2006/04/further_evidence_rumsfeld_implicated_in_war_crimes.html

[Peace Patriot]

6. The Secretary of Defense doesn't control a big political banner on an aircraft carrier?

Tell me another one, Donald!

No doubt--as with everything Rumsfeld says--the exact opposite is the truth. Political advisors/speech writers probably kept that stupid phrase out of the speech, against Rumsfeld's insistence that it go in. Political advisers/speech writers won that fight. But Rumsfeld got his way, anyway, by ordering up the banner, designed, painted and hung by military personnel whom he COULD control and had direct authority over.

He is such a goddamned liar--he's the lyingest one of them all. Know what he said he was doing after the two planes hit the towers, and two others had made U-turns and were headed back to DC? Said he was "in a meeting," didn't know what was happening.

This was after he had pulled all NORAD decision-making powers into his own hands, six months before 9/11. AWOL, during the critical hour--the Secretary of Defense. The only one, really, who could have called off standard NORAD/AF procedures for that day and that day only.

"In a meeting."

[LiberalFighter]

7. Who were in the meeting? Some bimbo? Or was he in a circle jerk meeting?

[Peace Patriot]

8. I don't know. I remember something about Congress members and the issue

was national security. I'm not sure anybody ever asked him--9/11 Commission? Congress? FBI?--incredible as it may seem. You raise a good point. WHO was in that "meeting"? However, if Rumsfeld was elsewhere--as I strongly suspect--he may have conspirators lined up to vouch for him. He's as devious as Cheney, and possibly much worse.

You gotta wonder why he's gone, with no change of policy in Iraq.

[Disturbed]

10. "You gotta wonder why he's gone,"

News Flash! Rumsfailed is not "gone". He is still an advisor to Busholini.

[Supersedeas]

9. Frankly, on this issue...i tend to trust Donald more than pretty boy Bartlett-the Bush lover