And then laughing about how it was great/funny/whatever. I watched it and thought... this video is stupid... really stupid. I can only assume it was funny to other people because they're Anti-Bush Democrats and see it as a "gotcha!" The thing is, it's not at all...
Some brackground, I consider myself pretty centrist, most political quizzes say I'm a Libertarian. I really don't care either way. Personally, I think term limits are a good thing, and that the back and forth play between the two major parties is what keeps things sane, instead of one being right and the other wrong.
So anyway, the video... it basically consists of Rumsfeld saying how neither he nor the President said anything about Saddam/Iraq being an immediate threat. Right off the bat they question him about "nobody in the Administration said that?"... he didn't say nobody, he said neither he nor the President, and he claries by saying he can't speak for the entire Administration, and then asks them for citations saying otherwise if they have them.
So first, they pull a quote from Rumsfeld himself saying:
"Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain."
So I thought, since when does "not be so certain" mean "Yes, definitely."? It doesn't... he said he wouldn't be so certain that it was that far off, he didn't say it was an immediate threat, he said he wasn't certain. Gotcha? I guess if you completely warp the meaning of "not be so certain" to something completely different, then sure...
So they go right on to the next quote from Rumsfeld, which says:
"No terror 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."
They even went so far as to put "immediate threat" in red text so it stands out. Gotcha again? If you completely ignore the context of the phrase and what he was saying. That qualifier "more" in particular stands out, as it was ignored completely... guess what, nothing poses a more immediate threat to the shrinking of my family than my parents' deaths, but does that mean my parents' deaths are an immediate threat??? That it's imminent that they will die just because that's the foremost threat to the shrinking of my family? No... it means that's the foremost event... foremost does not mean immediate or imminent. Even simpler, nothing poses a more immediate threat to my life ending as my death... so my death is an immediate threat? No...
And at that point, they immediately fade out as Rumsfeld starts explaining, and they put up in ominous red text, "It's time for the deception to stop." What the hell??? A completely deceptive partial video that completely takes two quotes out of context, and changes and warps the meaning of words in them, is calling for the deception to stop???
So yes, this is my rant on stupidity. If someone sees something wrong with what I've said, please point it out. The whole thing made me boggles. And it scares me how easily the people who linked me to this were taken in by it. I voiced my argument to them as I have here, and no one responded or even acknowledged it. I'm not sure if that was because I'm accurately pointing out huge flaws in the video, and they had no recourse, or simply because they lost interest and decided not to pay attention.