Errol Morris on Donald Rumsfeld, The Unknown Known, and Evidence-Based Journalism

|

"Errol Morris on Donald Rumsfeld, The Unknown Known, and Evidence-Based Journalism", by Nick Gillespie and Jim Epstein, was released on April 3, 2014. The original writeup follows:

Donald Rumsfeld's "war crime," says Oscar-winning filmmaker Errol Morris, is "the gobbledygook, the blizzard of words, the misdirections, the evasions…and ultimately at the heart of it all…the disregard and devaluation of evidence."

The former secretary of defense's complicated relationship with the truth is the subject of Morris' new documentary, The Unknown Knownwhich opens in theaters nationwide on Friday, April 4.The Unknown Known is an extended conversation with Rumsfeld, tracing his long career through the Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush administrations, and focusing on his role in leading U.S. military forces into Iraq to fight a bloody and senseless war.

In the film, Morris engages in a verbal sparring session with Rumsfeld in an effort to break through the linguistic "evasions" and "gobbledygook" for which he's known.

The title of the film comes from Rumsfeld's response to a question by NBC reporter Jim Miklaszewski at a Pentagon news conference on February 12, 2002. When Miklaszewski asked Rumsfeld if there was any evidence that Iraq was supplying terrorists with weapons, Rumsfeld replied:

Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.

In a four-part series in The New York Times titled "The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld," Morris wrote: "Many people believe Rumsfeld's reply was brilliant. I think otherwise."

The Unknown Known is Errol Morris' 10th documentary feature. He's also the author of two best-selling books and the director of over 1,000 TV commercials. Much of Morris' work explores, as he puts it, "how people prefer untruth to truth" and how they're "blinded by their own spurious convictions."

Reason TV's Nick Gillespie sat down for an extended chat with Morris about The Unknown Known. They discussed, among other things, the difference between Rumsfeld and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, whose complicated relationship with his own mistakes is the subject of Morris' Oscar-winning film, The Fog of War; Morris' take on the Jeffrey MacDonald murder case, which was the subject of his book, A Wilderness of Error; how Obama compares to Bush; his friendships with Roger Ebert and Werner Herzog; and why "we're all morons."

Gillespie conducted the interview using an "interrotron," a device Morris invented, which projects an interviewer's face over the camera lens. It creates the impression that the subject is looking directly into the eyes of the viewer.

About 41 minutes.

Shot and edited by Jim Epstein.

NEXT: Photography as a Shield: #NotABugSplat

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. OT (and not gay!) but interesting

    http://www.vocativ.com/culture…..retapping/

    1. “He secretly recorded the abuse on his school-issued iPad

      Because public schools don’t get enough money to actually teach kids, you see.

    2. After being regularly shoved and tripped, and nearly burned with a cigarette lighter, a tormented special-needs student in Pennsylvania decided to take matters into his own hands. He secretly recorded the abuse on his school-issued iPad, and his mother eventually submitted the evidence to the school’s principal. But instead of punishing the teenage tyrants caught on tape, administrators decided to call the police, who threatened the 15-year-old boy with felony wiretapping, but later reduced the charge to disorderly conduct. He was found guilty on March 19.

      Is this a great country or what?

  2. Social liberal fantasizes about what would have to happen to make the public accept climate change:

    “Part of being a science communicator is hoping a natural disaster kills as many members of the audience as possible, as soon as possible, with as much media exposure as possible. As a communicator myself, I’d like nothing better than for thousands of middle-class white people to die in an extreme weather event?preferably one with global warming’s fingerprints on it?live on cable news. Tomorrow.”

    http://climatenuremberg.com/20…..sing-them/

    1. If you read the entire original thread it’s truly first-class trolling. If only our trolls were so brilliant.

      1. Well, he got me.

        Should always read the ‘about us’ page.

        1. I was hoodwinked too until I found out there was no such person as a Dr. C.R.R. Kampen working in the field of cognitive science. On the other hand, there is this guy, who seems to troll every damn climate blog in existence.

    2. Jesus Christ.

      What is it with the left and death and murder?

      1. Make that ‘with death and murder.’

    3. Hmmm…might be a satire. If so, sorry for taking it seriously.

      “The Shortest Way with the dissenters”

      http://www.bartleby.com/27/12.html

      1. Know what’s scary?

        He’s probably right about the left wishing death on their opponents regarding global warming.

        They’re already calling for them to be put in prison so death is not that much of a stretch from there.

        So my own question remains. Why do the left, in the end, resort to violence?

        Besides, of course, with the fact their ideas suck.

        1. It’s a feature on both the left and right, really. I’ve been in conversations with some right wing guys who think that people who sell MJ to teenagers should be executed. After a fair trial, of course. I think it’s more a case of the emotional demand to see the world work as they would like outrunning their basic humanity. They might be fine in almost every area, play with the dog, love the kids, tip the waitress well, etc. but when they hit that ideological trigger all of it goes away and they become capable of anything because they emotionally cannot accept a world in which the triggering thing exists. The only thing that restrains them is the consequences of acting out their desires. I think that this also applies to cops where the triggering thing is disobedience to their athoritah which strikes at the heart of their ego causing a violent outburst in an effort to resolve the dissonance between the offending behavior and their self-image.

          1. We’re always just a few kulaks/infidels/Tutsis away from utopia.

            Why do you have utopia, Dances?

            1. Utopia Dances sounds like the title to a pretentious, left-wing novel.

              1. Funny, I thought it would make a good stripper name.

          2. True but the greatest murders were perpetuated from the left side of the coin.

            I haven’t seen the right kill scores and millions of marijuana dealers.

            1. Agreed, and I think it has a lot to do with the degree to which many leftists incorporate the political into their own identity. It happens on both sides but I see it a lot more with leftists where people who disagree with them become an intolerable threat to their core identity justifying anything to relieve the dissonance. The whole thing recently with that prof attacking that protester in CA and the support she is getting from the progs there is a great example.

          3. You make good points, but I still believe that many people are mildly sociopathic. They can empathize with people that are close to them, or who are very similar to them, but get outside of that and they couldn’t care less if people are killed or imprisoned or whatever. Whether it’s the right-wing drug warrior who doesn’t give a shit that non-violent pot smokers are being raped in prison, or the left-wing class warrior who would gladly see the “rich” taken out and shot, they are, at the end of the day, sociopathic. They absolutely cannot empathize with people who aren’t of a specific makeup that works for them, and are therefore completely fine with violence being served on them.

            Again, I don’t think this is rare. I think it’s actually pretty common and pretty normal for humans, which is unfortunate. But you can’t change human nature.

            1. They can empathize with people that are close to them, or who are very similar to them, but get outside of that and they couldn’t care less if people are killed or imprisoned or whatever.

              They can empathize with about 150 people (on average). If true, I find the consequences of Dunbar’s Number to be fascinating.

              1. Dunbar’s Number isn’t really about empathy as it is about social cohesion. One can empathize with a complete stranger. I think the relevance to Epi’s thought is that after you get past that 150-230 or so mark that you’ve gone outside the tribe, so to speak, and basic social conditioning takes over which, for a variety of reasons, I think, is not functioning nearly as well as it once did in our society.

                1. You make a good point, and you are correct that Dunbar’s Number is primarily about stable social networks; however, I’m not sure I agree with

                  One can empathize with a complete stranger.

                  I think you can sympathize

                  1. Hmm…it ate up the rest of my post.

                    I think you can sympathize with a complete stranger but true empathy requires an intimate connection with someone else, imo.

                  2. I think you can sympathize

                    yeah, yeah, yeah. 🙂

            2. I completely concur with both of you on those fronts. I was just highlighting the results of left-wing doctrines in the 20th century.

              I don’t mean to bring this back to Quebec but I will give an example you guys bring up.

              The language laws are perverse to the extent that Quebecers of all stripes are hurt. French-Canadians are prevented from sending their kids to English-language schools should they choose to while English (speaking) Quebecers have to face the wrath of the language police.

              French-Canadians don’t know or perhaps give a shit how much of a nuisance on the low-end and outright injustice we face in front of such outrageous laws. I believe if they saw in the flesh what goes on they would not feel it appropriate and perhaps force them to rethink their positions.

              Ironically, they do the same thing the Anglos did to them decades ago. But today, it’s all the people who had nothing to do with that getting hit.

              As for our views of Quebecers and immigrants prevented from sending their kids to English schools, we feel this is exactly what keeps them down. We express this but it’s a case of bringing the horse to the water but if it doesn’t want to drink…

              1. Not many people outside a situation such as yours can really comprehend the reality of linguicide. Repression of language can start bloody conflicts, as Bangladesh’s split from Pakistan has shown us.

                1. But it hasn’t in Canada. In fact, there IS linguistic peace in Quebec to a certain extent. It only comes up when the PQ get into power and all their ‘Quebec is French’ crap.

                  1. Indeed. Many applied linguists and language policy scholars from many countries hold a favorable view of the Canadian Language Immersion model, precisely because it is an additive model, that is you come with your home language and through learning another language you are just adding another tool to your intellectual toolbox. However, other places, the United States being one of them, tend to go for subtractive models; that is, the learning of the second language is seen as remedial in nature.

                2. The only thing that comes close to that in Quebec were the St. Leonard Riots (St. Leonard is in East Montreal) when the Italians rebelled against the nationalist government who wanted to pull them under Bill 101 (originally the law was meant to apply to all Quebecers not being able to send their kids to English schools). The non-francophone communities – led by the Italians – fought to keep their right and won. The way we saw it was Quebec had their chance back at the turn of the century to get us under their language side but chose instead to discriminate. So, the Italians did what the Jews and Irish had – their own parochial schools.

                  What happened was by the 1950s the Italians were surpassing Francos in their own back yard and nationalists were alarmed.

                  Hence, yaddee-yaddee-yaddaa…fuck off.

                  1. Oh, by the way. Not surprising, this isn’t taught in the French school system. Very, very few Quebecers don’t know this significant tidbit in history. They often wonder why a) we don’t support separatism and b) why we’re exempt from 101.

                    St. Leonard is why.

                    1. drop the ‘don’t’ in ‘don’t know.’

                  2. Interesting. I see a great irony in the fact that one of the reasons the town I now live in, Manchester, N.H., once had the largest Francophone population, per capita, in North America outside of the province of Quebec was due to the bilingual parochial schools they went to.

                    1. Didn’t know that. Always figured it would be in Ontario or Manitoba. But many French-Canadians emigrated to New England so it’s not surprising.

                      Many Thibodeau’s and Tremblay’s down there.

                    2. I would have said Manitoba.

                      There are many families here who still have a 0 english tolerance for their children.

                    3. They be retarded then?

                    4. Well, the mills at Manchester were once the largest textile manufacturers in the world.

            3. They absolutely cannot empathize with people who aren’t of a specific makeup that works for them, and are therefore completely fine with violence being served on them.

              I feel this is mostly true. Just last week while riding home from a baseball game with my parents we see a billboard off the freeway advertising a HempCon in LA and my dad starts complaining about the pot smokers and my mom asks me if I’d vote yes on legalization.

              I gave on honest account of my reasons for supporting it, from the fact that it doesn’t make a dent in cannabis consumption to the egregious abuses of the police and it all just deflected off because marijuana is bad, only drug dealers and bad guy to go to jail for drug violations, and why not just legalize cocaine while we are at it?

              I hate to paint my parents in such a negative light because they are both otherwise good people, but I feel it would take myself or one of my siblings getting roughed up or killed by some cop looking for drugs to get them to care.

        2. Why do the left, in the end, resort to violence?

          Because they are unprincipled. The believe the ends justify the means.

    4. It’s not only satire, it’s fantastic satire:

      “By the simple trick of telling people that Kampen hopes they die without saying what he writes next (wherein he clearly explains that it’s for their own good)”

      I mean that’s A+ material right there.

  3. Social liberal robs Brazilian woman as she’s being interviewed by a TV crew about crime:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-…..ign=buffer

    1. Social liberals rob me every day right here in Murika, and they don’t even have to get their lame asses off the sofa to do it. And no one reports it as news!

  4. Errol completely ducks a question about the scrutiny of ‘evidence’ and his belief in the gullibility of the populace when asked about his own political advocacy.

    Apparently prevarication is OK when its done in aid of something something something ‘see the NYT is *objective* blah blah blah.

    1. Also disappointing: Everything is better under Obama, Obama is the Bringer of Light… Bush did so much damage, the Bringer of Light is hobbled.

  5. TSA announcement says that, during Passover, their goons will be extra-sensitive to people carrying religious items, as follows:

    “Passengers traveling with religious items, including handmade matzoh, may request a hand inspection by the TSO of the items at the security checkpoint.”

    http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-in…..y-passover

    h/t ReligionClause

    1. Our workforce is aware of the unique items carried by individuals and religious practices individuals may engage in while traveling.

      I seriously doubt that unless during the last 5 years the GED started to include an entire unit in comparative religion.

      1. Are you disrespecting these Heroes, Heroic?

        1. I was calling for more training funds, actually.

    2. Why does it matter anyway? The blood moons are going to get us. The BLOOD MOONS!!! Do you hear me, BLOOD MOONS! THE END IS HERE, just like the last 347 times they told me it was!

      1. Admittedly, Y2K got me a bit wound up. We decided to store two weeks worth of food and fuel. I used our all-electric kitchen as an excuse to get a new Weber 22.5″ grill, a pair of charcoal baskets, a chimney starter and 240 pounds of charcoal, all on sale.

        We knew people who had their basement stacked with sacks of rice and beans for Y2K. Things were “going to go away and take months… years… to come back.” Still, we went their big New Year’s Eve party, then sneaked off right before the countdown. Three, two, one, Happy New Year! I pulled the main breaker and drove home.

  6. “HOUSTON (CN) – The Mormon church is trying to shut down the “Mormon Match” dating website under the mistaken belief that the “church has total ownership of the word” Mormon, the site’s owner claims in Federal Court.”

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/04/10/66953.htm

    h/t ReligionClause

  7. I am excited to see the film, as I’m generally a fan of EM’s stuff.

    That said, the hyper-focus on the ‘evidence’ for Iraq complicity in any 9/11 relation, or sponsorship of terrorism or whatever, I think is misleading if it is to prove the basis of the entire criticism of DR.

    The rationale for “why Iraq, and why Now?” was pretty clearly laid out by the PNAC co-signatories immediately before and after the Gulf War. They believed that ‘ending’ the Hussain regime was a inevitable necessity; they also believed doing so would begin a process that lead to a eventual ‘permanent’ status quo in the middle east where there was no longer an existential threat to Israel.

    Obviously Rumsfeld was never going to tell people, “this has been a policy I’ve supported for over a decade” – but anybody asking Deep Questions about the case for War that he made should at least have presented this as the background issue.

    1. PNAC is proof that pols can lie their ass off while the media remains wimpy bystanders.

      While the Bushpigs were lying about WMD not only was PNAC and A Clean Break ignored the New York Times let Judith Miller cover up for them.

      And half the Democrats went along too. Opposition party, my ass.

      1. The Bush administration did not lie about WMD, you mendacious fuck.

        They presented the same Intel the military was getting 10 years prior.

        Fuck you. That is all.

        1. You’re full of shit. Colin Powell was sent to the UN to lie about “mobile weapons labs” and a chemical arsenal.

          Bush had to retract a lie he told in the State of the Union address about yellowcake from Niger. There were the aluminum tubes that were claimed to be centrifuges. There were the unmanned sea nukes that were floating toward the East Coast. Cheney spent his time at the CIA fabricating intelligence.

          And you bought the lies.

          1. HUUURRR DUUUUUR herpity derp.

            Are you listening to me you fucking retard? I was being briefed on Iraqi WMD 10 fucking years before there WAS a BOOOOOOOSH administration, you unbelievably stupid twat. The intel was simply wrong. Of course that doesn’t fit your narrative does it, shitbag?

            You are a fucking moron.

            1. Saddam complied with UN 1441 and allowed inspectors everywhere.

              They had nothing except some old buried mustard gas shells from WW1.

              1. Yes, as I said, the intel was wrong…genius. I guess BOOOOSH looked into his crystal ball and saw that the entire US Intelligence community was wrong and told the nation exactly what the community was saying anyway.

                God you are a disingenuous pig.

                1. I just finished Powell’s latest book a few months ago. He does admit that he based his decisions on flawed intel; however, he strongly insinuates that Rumsfeld knew the intel was bullshit but went ahead anyway because as Gilmore pointed out above, he was part of the clique that Powell referred to as the “fucking crazies” who just wanted a casus belli, any casus belli, to justify their empire building.

                  1. How Rumsfeld would know such a thing is beyond me.

                    I always thought the administration’s actual goal was not its stated goal. I always believed Bush wanted to install a democracy in the region, in the belief that once neighboring nations saw the benefits, it would spread and lead to peace in the region. I always thought the WMD excuse for invasion was weak tea for starting a preemptive war, regardless of whether the intel was right or wrong.

                    1. How Rumsfeld would know such a thing is beyond me.

                      *shrugs*
                      I dunno. Powell really doesn’t go into it in great detail as the focus of the book was about what he learned about leadership. He used the anecdote to exhort leaders to make sure they collect as much first-hand data and to vet the sources before they make decisions.

                    2. I always thought the WMD excuse was more about getting the UK on board. Tony Bleah’s Labour Party wasn’t going to vote for going to war just because Saddam Hussein was violating UN resolutions; they needed something more. Hence the focus on WMDs.

                    3. I saw it as “finishing a war” rather than starting one but there is no excuse but the inevitable nation-building was reason enough to stay the fuck out. If they were upfront about the nation-building and feels RoE they would’ve lost the support of your average jingoistic hawk too.

                    4. Yes, and it was a stupid strategy, and especially when an Islamic constitution was instituted. Some “democracy”.

                    5. Yes, and it was a stupid strategy, and especially when an Islamic constitution was instituted. Some “democracy”.

                      That’s what the people of Iraq wanted. There’s a reason this country was founded as a constitutional republic, not as a democracy. Democracy is mob rule, nothing more.

                  2. Rumsfeld knew the intel was bullshit but went ahead anyway because as Gilmore pointed out above, he was part of the clique that Powell referred to as the “fucking crazies” who just wanted a casus belli, any casus belli, to justify their empire building.

                    I know someone that worked for him at the DoD and the impression that I got from my conversations with her is that this was basically the case. That the intel was cooked to present a compelling case for war and dissenting opinions were suppressed. The intel community is no different than any other in that different people come to different conclusions. In the case of Iraq it seems that it was more a case of seeking justification for a previously desired outcome than one of dispassionately examining all available information and seeking to make a choice based on it.

                    I have no certain ideas on why he did this, but his management style didn’t leave a lot of room for results the boss didn’t like.

                    This was my impression from talking with her, for what it’s worth.

                    1. I have no certain ideas on why he did this, but his management style didn’t leave a lot of room for results the boss didn’t like.

                      You’re talking about Rummie, right?

                    2. You’re talking about Rummie, right?

                      Correct.

                    3. As an aside I just had my own little chilling effect on speech due to the NSA moment. At first I typed in specifically who I talked about this Rumsfeld stuff with, and, after looking at the text a bit, deleted it and made it generic. Doubt that it would have mattered, but why take the chance these days.

                      Fuck the NSA and their political enablers.

                2. This is where Bush McChimpy transforms before our very eyes into Bush the Criminal Mastermind who pulled off one of the greatest cases of public and diplomatic trickery in modern history.

                  1. You mean he scared the little people by reading his Axis of Evil propaganda enough times.

                    When that war launched over 80% of Americans thought Saddam helped plan 9/11.

                    Of course Cheney was telling them that every week.

                    1. Palin’s Buttplug|4.12.14 @ 10:03PM|#
                      “You mean he scared the little people…”

                      No, slimy turd, he confused idjit assholes like you.
                      Fuck off.

                    2. When that war launched over 80% of Americans thought Saddam helped plan 9/11.

                      [citation required]

                      I personally never heard anyone in the administration say any such thing. As I recall they freely admitted they could find no such link. Their argument was Saddam might give the weapons to terrorist organizations (as I said, weak tea).

                      Of course shitstopper has no problem rewriting history to fit his narrative.

                    3. And they also argued that Hussein was providing aid and training locations to terrorists. From what most people said, there was little doubt about that. Certainly Abu Nidal was there for a while and Muhammad Zaidan was still there in 2003.

                3. When progtards are wrong, it’s always a technicality.
                  When republicans are wrong, it’s BOOSH.
                  When libertarians are wrong, it’s LOL RON PAUL.

              2. I seem to recall UN inspectors being railroaded at every turn and they complained about it.

                Palin, you’re not ‘furbo.’ Hussein ‘complied’ but he dicked inspectors around.

      2. If you like your Democrats you can keep them.

    2. “The rationale for “why Iraq, and why Now?” was pretty clearly laid out by the PNAC co-signatories immediately before and after the Gulf War.”

      Yeah, Gilmore is not a neocon, nope, not at all.

      1. I don’t keep an enemies list the way you do, but I can’t see anything in that common that I would describe as support for the neocons. I see someone analyzing events. Nothing more or nothing less.

        1. It is classic concern trolling:

          I agree with you guys (‘I am excited to see the film, as I’m generally a fan of EM’s stuff.’)

          BUT (‘That said,’)

          The criticism the article focuses on should be dismissed/discounted on (‘the hyper-focus on the ‘evidence’ for Iraq complicity in any 9/11 relation, or sponsorship of terrorism or whatever, I think is misleading’)

          because there is a really another answer which happens to be the one the criticized person switched to (‘The rationale for “why Iraq, and why Now?” was pretty clearly laid out by the PNAC co-signatories immediately before and after the Gulf War. They believed yada yada)

          1. Dear brainless douche =

            If one wants to criticize the “case for war in Iraq” (as I do, and have, and continue to do), you have to understand and take into consideration every bit of “evidence”

            (as EM claims he is the honest caretaker of)

            The case for “war in Iraq” was a decade+ old before 9/11 happened, made in detail by numerous members of the Bush admin (Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Pearle as advisor@).

            Anyone who HAS criticized Iraq in the past (like myself) knows this and takes this into consideration – nay, makes it PRIMARY – when looking at ‘everything’ related to the casus belli

            Pretending that the case for war came ex-nihilo post 9-11, and was based ‘entirely’ on WMD intelligence concerns, is misleading. As a fan of Morris, I’d want his movie to cover all of the relevant material. I hope he does. If I noted some specific hypocrisy in EM’s interview – its because *it was there*. Its called being ‘objective’ you asshat.

            1. That’s right Gilmore, you’re just trying to be fair to poor Rumsfeld and other neocons. Sure. As a fan of Morris.

              1. Bo, what the fuck are you babbling about? I’ve read GILMORE’s post 5 times trying to read something partisan into it. There is nothing right leaning about it.

                You are off your rocker.

                1. Since you defended the Bush administration earlier in the thread, I thank you for your statement!

                  1. Gilmore said this:

                    That said, the hyper-focus on the ‘evidence’ for Iraq complicity in any 9/11 relation, or sponsorship of terrorism or whatever, I think is misleading if it is to prove the basis of the entire criticism of DR.

                    Yeah, this completely reasonable statement is obviously evidence that Gilmore is a crazed and raving NeoCon.

                    Every time a libertarian says ‘I think this argument may be a bit misleading’ a Neo-Conservative invades the Middle East.

                    1. Ask yourself: would Rumsfeld and other neocons like us to talk about the WMD rationale (upon which they sold the war) or the PNAC stuff? Gilmore happily shifts the focus on 1 and to 2, which is what every neocon wants.

                      Add this to his ‘let’s talk about how libertarian non-interventionism is unprincipled’ tirades and…

                    2. Ask yourself: would Rumsfeld and other neocons like us to talk about the WMD rationale (upon which they sold the war) or the PNAC stuff?

                      Wait. From Gilmore’s comment:

                      Obviously Rumsfeld was never going to tell people, “this has been a policy I’ve supported for over a decade” – but anybody asking Deep Questions about the case for War that he made should at least have presented this as the background issue.

                      He’s arguing that Rumsfeld was advocating the Iraq war for literally a decade prior to the Bush administration. This would completely destroy every argument Rumsfeld and Bush made to advocate that war.

                      If Rumsfeld wanted people to talk about PNAC, he would have brought up PNAC himself. PNAC in no way makes Rumsfeld look good since it implies he completely lied about his reasons for wanting to go to war…which, in fairness, he pretty clearly did.

                    3. You do not read many Neocon journals and such.

                      In the buildup to the war they stressed WMD’s and 9/11.

                      When that did not pan out they started talking about UN violations and democratization. Gilmore is following that path.

                    4. Why would it destroy every argument they made for the war? BTW, he did lie not because in fact as an answer to a prior question in the same session he mentions this goes back a decade. You are assuming mutual exclusion when it is not warranted. Dems had been rattling swords over Saddam for a decade also.

                      I recall having a dicussion with a French citizen at the time, prior to resumption of hostilities, and he was on and on that the only reason given was WMD. All these other reasons were also mentioned and I pointed that out to him. Runsfeld’s “real reasons” were public at the time. The argument that WMD were the sole reason given is bullshit.

                  2. You are a snot-nosed little twat.

                    I pointed out buttfuck’s lies. Telling the truth makes you a Team sympathizer? You are as bad as he is.

                    Bo, a little advice. Come on out of mommy’s basement and go out and find a girlfriend. Who knows, if you play it right, you might get your first kiss.

                    Fucking child.

                    1. “The Bush administration did not lie about WMD”

                      Keep the faith!

                    2. Bo McCarthy:

                      Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party of the United States?

                      Have you ever kissed a girl Bo? (Mommy doesn’t count)

                    3. This is hilarious, it reminds me of poor Warty whom, upon hearing I was a college (graduate) student declared ‘oh, so you are a virgin!’

                      Because of course, in his experience, no one gets laid in college!

                    4. No Bo, you misunderstood him. EVERYBODY gets laid in college…except you. Do you ever wonder why that is?

      2. Dear idiotic twat =

        Knowing of something’s existence is not an endorsement of it.

        And had you been around these parts more than the time it took for Tulpa to craft your douchetastic-personality, you’d know I’ve repeatedly gone over why Iraq was a *dumb fucking idea* on the basis of the very reasons that the Neocons believed (behind the b.s. WMD selling point)

        Not that it even matters. The point is that you are a fucking drooling moron who thinks that slapping labels on others will make your bullshit seem more credible to *someone*. No one bought it the first time; repetition just makes you look desperate.

        1. I am excited to see the film, as I’m generally a fan of EM’s stuff…

          …That said, the hyper-focus on the ‘evidence’ for Iraq complicity in any 9/11 relation, or sponsorship of terrorism or whatever, I think is misleading

          …EM decides to rework Nick’s actual question about Obama’s *policies* into “is Obama better/worse than Bush?”…rather than actually consider any of the addition/different/other issues Nick raised. Again = prevarication. its always someone else doing it?

          Classic concern trolling…’I really like and agree with X you guys, but I do not like X this time…and there is this problem with X I am worried about…’

          1. Yes, and “repetition just makes you look desperate”

            1. No need to be so defensive, GILMORE. You are not a neocon.

              Now. How about you launch into a discussion about when intervention really is warranted again?

              1. Changing the topic is another good way to remind people that you’re a dishonest cunt who cares nothing for the facts at hand but just trolls looking for something to piss-superior about.

                We know.

                1. Not changing the topic, but pointing out more evidence of your neo-con leanings.

                2. I can just hear Bo whispering..

                  “I see Red People.”

                  1. Yes, Dances, no conservatives-posing-as-libertarians on this cite!

                    Seen any immigration threads lately?

    3. What is obvious to you is false. Rumsfeld did tell people this was on their minds for 10-12 years. The question that generated the “unknown unknowns” response was a follow up question (which itself was a gobbledygook question and is shy it is never mentioned).

      “Q: But would it be accurate to say that this building, that the Pentagon is now spending more time considering Iraq than it had previously, in terms of your planning process?
      Rumsfeld: This building has always been attentive, for at least more than a decade now, 10, 12 years, to Iraq. We’ve had Northern no-fly zones and Southern no-fly zones; been flying flights there attempting to contain that country and prevent them from jumping on one of their neighbors.
      Yes?”

  8. That Dumbsfeld dude is oh so full of himself.

    http://www.GotsDatAnon.tk

  9. @20:25 EM decides to rework Nick’s actual question about Obama’s *policies* into “is Obama better/worse than Bush?”…rather than actually consider any of the addition/different/other issues Nick raised.

    Again = prevarication. its always someone else doing it?

  10. http://www.thewire.com/politic…..re/360528/

    Rape culture bullshit leads to a firing.

    1. “Fundamentally, all I was aiming to do is to create a safe space in the Carolina community,” she explains. “In a lot of ways, violent or graphic images that allude to sexual violence are triggers.”

      And fundamentally, a pro-life protester just wants to protect the rights of the unborn.

      But nah, your side can get away with ascribing to them the most nefarious motives while we just have to accept your noble intentions rather than the suggest that you are an emotionally stunted control freak that thinks the world should revolve around you.

      1. The article is funny, because it has someone who actually has flashbacks to a sexual assault explaining how triggers actually work.

        I worked with a guy couple summers ago who was our on staff EMT. His last EMT job had been in Iraq. So I jokingly yelled “medic!” at the office one day cuz one of the kids needed an ice pack for some minor thing. He told me later that yelling that word at him had given him a little mini flashback.

        I felt bad.

    1. But how likely is she to be shot?

      And is that before or after he fucks her?

    2. Levitt and Venkatesh authored that? I look forward to Pimponomics very soon.

      Seriously, I would read the fuck out of that.

    3. One could guess that the more cops she serves, the less chance she has of being arrested.

  11. “Blacketts War”, Budiansky.
    Good read, finally got an insight into Turing’s “bombes” and why they worked.
    But, pg 256: “[Bernal]called Lysenko’s theories […] a democratic response to “bourgeois” science…”
    And then, pg 261: “They [including Bernal] did it by an abiding faith in rationality […] absolutely determined to let the facts lead where they will…”
    Not quite.
    I’m sure Budiansky can construct an apologia for the climate change catastrophists.

  12. Did CBS Even Consider Hiring a Woman Before It Pounced on Stephen Colbert?

    1. CBS should have hired a comedic genius like Paula Poundstone, Janeane Garofalo , or Whoopi Goldberg.

      1. Instead we have selfies, Xanax and a bunch of white guys

        Oh noes, the ultimate evil, a bunch of white guys!

        1. They should have hired a quadriplegic fat ugly black one-legged transgendered lesbian instead to make sure the show is diverse.

          1. Rule 34 would like a word with you

      2. Speaking of rape culture, isn’t it interesting that Paula Poundstone’s career seems to have survived her sex scandal? Would a straight male comic’s career have survived pleading “no contest” to felony sex abuse with his adopted daughter?

        1. I think she pleaded no contest to one count of felony child endangerment and charges of lewd acts were dropped by prosecutor’s request?

          http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01…..rrest.html

          1. I wrote that incorrectly: she pled guilty to child abuse, not sex abuse. Still, I think she got slack a man would not have gotten.

            1. “I wrote that incorrectly: she pled guilty to child abuse, not sex abuse.”

              Innocent mistake, I am sure.

              1. Child endangerment very much < sex abuse.

                “Child endangerment laws are often very broadly applied, and any number of acts can lead to a conviction. Courts have held that obviously dangerous activities such as having a child in a car while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs constitutes child endangerment. Other dangerous activities that qualify include failing to properly secure a child while driving an automobile, exposing a child to drug transactions, drug manufacturing, having unsecured firearms in the same environment as a child, engaging in sexual activity in view of a child, or leaving a young child without proper supervision.”

                http://www.criminaldefenselawy…..erment.htm

                1. Yes, but apparently the lewd acts happened, but were dropped in the plea bargain.

    2. Yes.

      Next question? Need any other mansplanations?

  13. DIET ‘guru’ Freelee the Banana Girl is causing a stir with her raw vegan diet, that can see her eating more than 50 bananas a day.

    1. How many millisieverts of radiation is that per day?

      Where is Joe?

    2. There needs to be documented video-recorded evidence of this. Preferably, Ms. Freelee slowly placing those 50 bananas between her lips in a sensual and lascivious manner.

    3. She could have ate my banana 50 times a day and I think that the protein would have put more meat onto her scrawny ass. Looks to me like 50 bananas a day are a recipe for anorexia.

        1. But does titties doe

          I don’t even know what you just said, lol. I’m going on an expedition to the fridge to discover more beer.

  14. Joe Biden to visit Kiev as conflict escalates

    Should be done by Christmas.

    1. So, Kiev is in need of a court jester?

    2. So, Kiev is in need of a court jester?

    3. So, Kiev is in need of a court jester?

    4. So, Kiev is in need of a court jester?

    5. So, Kiev needs a court jester?

      1. Does Kiev need a court jester? Is that what you are thinking?

        1. Well, if they need one, we have one available that I am, for one, willing to give.

    6. “Joe Biden to visit Kiev as conflict escalates”

      He’s bringing his shotgun.

  15. Good Gawd, the squirrels have won.

    1. Is that a record?

      1. I had 6 once.

        1. You lie! I have the record and you are trying to steal it!

  16. So I’m sure I’m not the only one who finds all the rape culture, triggers and “safe space” rather amusing since I thought it was a good thing to show rape since only puritans didn’t want rape to be depicted or discussed?

    1. You silly person, puritanism is only bad when conservatives do it. Progressive leftist puritanism is a sensitive, forward-looking, diverse thing.

      1. Progressive leftist puritanism is a sensitive, forward-looking, diverse thing.

        Yes, as long as everyone thinks exactly the same way, in a hive like manner, you can’t get any more diverse than that.

        1. Exactly. Diversity comes in many colors and sizes and shapes and sexual orientations, but only one political thought pattern.

  17. Boosh gets booed

    Aww, poor becoming more irrelevant each day media, I has a sad for you and your favored cronies. GOP gets a sad because Bush and Joisey Fat Boy aren’t looking so popular. Murika is burning and crazed anarchists are playing their fiddles. I guess the terrorists will win and the children are doomed.

    1. If Rand keeps getting traction if the GOP establishment turns to Cruz in desperation. I have a feeling from browsing right wing sites from time to time that the GOP rank and file would probably feel more comfortable with him than Paul, and I think that if they try and ram Christie or Bush down their throats their poll numbers are going to plummet. It’s been a suspicion of mine for a while that the GOP fight is going to be Paul v Cruz as a main event. Guess time will tell, and I should never underestimate the GOP’s power of stupid.

      1. “the GOP establishment turns to Cruz in desperation”

        He’s been theirs the entire time.

        1. I don’t think so. He seems to have made a lot of enemies in the GOP establishment.

          1. Cruz, Princeton and Harvard grad. Clerked for Rehnquist. Worked for the George Bush campaign and administration. Served under Bush’s successor Abbott. Then worked for establishment DC law firm Morgan, Lewis.

            Not establishment at all.

            1. None of that disproves what I meant, which is that he regularly angers the party establishment.

              1. Shhh, Bo’s hunting consewvatives. huh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh

      2. I still see Scott Walker as a dark horse.

        1. He’s got that weird eye though, that will keep him from winning national office.

  18. Okay…

    Just watched the first 15 minutes of Pacific Rim. Do I need to watch any more?

    1. Ugh, just I tried it too, but it’s yet another science fiction film with jaw-dropping effects and art direction but without a plot or characters that I can care about. I’ve loved science fiction since I was a kid, and if anyone had told me that big-budget sf films would become a Hollywood staple, I’d have been ecstatic, but most seem to be written for 12-year-olds by ignorant and dim-witted producers.

      1. I’m waiting for “Pacific Rim Job”. Cause I know it’s….CUMMING soon! HAHAHAHA!

        Oh – nice to see Botard stopped by to unleash some NEYOCONZ on the herd. What a pinhead.

        *back to Supercross*

        1. Took a break from GOP advocacy? That makes baby Ted Crus cry Almanian…

          1. It’s not that you’re stupid or not libertarian enough, Bo.

            It’s that you’re profoundly unlikeable as a human being.

            Eh, it’ll probably help with the whole lawyering thingee.

            1. Eh, it’ll probably help with the whole lawyering thingee.

              It’s sure not going to help him get his first kiss (let alone get laid).

              1. Francisco, the difference between you and me, is you are home on a Saturday night watching Pacific Rim, and I am home from a party with my college age girlfriend.

                1. Bo, you don’t really expect anyone to believe you have a 22 year old blow-up doll, do you?

                  Have you kissed her yet? You should try, I doubt she’ll say no…but then again…

            2. And you, It, are very likable. Or maybe you just agree with the many ‘Burkean conservatives’ who, for some strange reason, like to be regulars at a site for a magazine long known for it’s left-leaning libertarianism?

              1. Nah, I’m a surly asshole — and yet, I somehow managed not coming off as an arrogant, morally preening jackass with a need to be the smartest, most sanctimonious person in the room with a helping of Inquisitorial complex. You’d fit in great at some churches I’ve been to, I’ll grant you that.

              2. There is no such thing as left/right leaning libertarian.

                There is only libertarian.

                1. I’ve also been sniffed out with Bo’s neocondar as not having proper thoughts. I consider it a badge of honor.

          2. Here is what liberal Harvard law professor says about Ted Cruz.

            Famed Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz ranks
            Sen. Ted Cruz among the school’s smartest students, adding that the
            Canada-born Texan can run for president in 2016.
            Cruz was a “terrific student,” Dershowitz told The Daily Caller. “He
            was always very active in class, presenting a libertarian point of view.
            He didn’t strike me as a social conservative, more of a libertarian.”
            “He had brilliant insights and he was clearly among the top students,
            as revealed by his class responses,” Dershowitz added. […]
            Cruz “was an outstanding student in my class,” Dershowitz said. “Without
            a doubt he is among the smartest students I’ve ever had? I’ve had great
            students but he has to be at the top of anyone’s short list, in terms
            of raw brain power.”

      2. I think that it has more to do with the fact that these movies are being written for as much mass market appeal as possible and thus are purposefully as uncomplicated and eye-candyish as possible for that reason. Then there’s the whole scifi propaganda film thing that really turns me off.

        I’ll stick with my books.

        1. Another problem is that Hollywood gets so much income from foreign countries now, so they don’t want clever dialog or anything that might confuse or upset young foreign audiences.

  19. It’s PacMan time

    1. vindication!
      Pacquiao gets retribution over Bradley.

  20. Here’s an actual comment from a Freedomworks article:

    Let me get this straight. You are advocating that we continue to rape mother earth, pollute our ecological system, destroy the ice caps and kill off every living creature on earth to continue to keep a few hundred oil jobs? Continued or further drilling will create more disasters. Please note the number of earthquakes recorded around fracking sites. Please note the filthy water created by these same fracking sites. I don’t support ANY Republican candidate for office of any kind, much less Lindsey Graham but it’s just plain ignorance to ignore the damage large corporations are doing to our environment and to allow it to continue unabated is criminal.

    We’re literally raping the Earth mother and there are only a few hundred oil jobs. Not quite sure I agree with his numbers.

    Same guy when discussing oil subsidies:

    I agree, Oil subsidies must go but remember, they are profit oriented corporations making billions. Take away a few million and the price of fuel will skyrocket. However we DO need to get regulations in place to slow this rise in gas prices.

    ??? They’re making billions but if we take away a few million dollars oil prices will skyrocket? Regulations can magically make fuel prices not increase?

    If this guy isn’t a parody of dumbass progressives, I weep for the future.

    1. /silently hands Irish a tissue

      1. No doubt a tissue made with the help of Earth-raping oil.

    2. Regulations really helped his hero Nixon slow the rise in gas prices. I’m sure they’ll help Chocolate Nixon do the same.

    3. If the price of gas goes up to $6, or $8, or $37/gallon, or whatever arbitrarily high price you pick, and the money winds up in the hands of the oil comapines, that’s just evil.

      If the price goes up, and the money ends up in the hands of the governmetn, that same money suddenly, magically becomes virtuous.

      1. Thus endeth the lesson.

        Is Botard the College Kid gone?

        *looks around like a Prairie Dog*

        YAY!

        And Villopoto won the Supercross. And I got a new motorcycle helmet yesterday. This is a good weekend so far!

  21. Seems ironic that he would criticize those who make statements or hold beliefs despite contradicting evidence, then go on to assert that Barack Obama is a victim of Bush era policies and just can’t unwind them fast enough. That’s a (demonstrably) 100% false assertion. I wonder if he realizes that even his biases color his perception of what is true and what is not.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.