Rumsfeld's oil quote

[nekokate]

George often attributes a quote to Donald Rumsfeld: "It's not our fault God put our oil under other people's countries".

I can't find reference to this anywhere. Anyone know if this is true or not, or where it came from?

[mickyv]

I have looked for this before and have concluded that GG has got it mixed up as it appears to be based on a quote by Dick Cheney, and the exact quote is “The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments”

[Mandy]

I think it is poetic licence. The implications are the same.

[mickyv]

Agreed GG_Fan, the Neocon belief that the West has a Divine right to steal other Countries resources.

[luke]

thats not quite the same though is it - i feel conned now, i used that quote a few times

[nekokate]

Exactly, Luke. If he didn't really say it then George shouldn't say he did. I'm sure Rumsfeld really is callous enough to think things like that (and probably say them in private), but if he has never said it, then... huh...

Think of how often George steps in to correct people who use the common falsehood that Ahmadinejad once said in Farsi that he would like to "wipe Israel off the map". This is exactly the same thing - it doesn't matter how evil someone is, if they didn't say something then they didn't say it.

[Mandy]

Think of how often George steps in to correct people who use the common falsehood that Ahmadinejad once said in Farsi that he would like to "wipe Israel off the map". This is exactly the same thing

I don't believe it is the same thing. The misquote from Ahmadinejad is intended to convey that he wants to invade and kill all Israelis, and thus act as an excuse to nuke Iran.

George was simply paraphrasing, whilst maintaining the same meaning.

In any case, the Ahmadinejad deliberate misquote is a government sanctioned black-propaganda/fear mongering. So the scale/effect of the two are no-where near the same.

[faceless]

I'd say the key phrase is "our oil" - that's an important difference.

[Mandy]

I'd say the key phrase is "our oil" - that's an important difference.

Faceless, would you be "happy" with :
"It's not our fault God put the oil we need under other people's countries".

[luke]

no, say it as it is, but add - The problem is that the good Lord didn't see fit to always put oil and gas resources where there are democratic governments ( that answer to and work for us ;) )

and thats before we look at the state of democracy in america ...

[faceless]

I'd say the key phrase is "our oil" - that's an important difference.

Faceless, would you be "happy" with :
"It's not our fault God put the oil we need under other people's countries".

no I "would not"

[nekokate]

Think of how often George steps in to correct people who use the common falsehood that Ahmadinejad once said in Farsi that he would like to "wipe Israel off the map". This is exactly the same thing

I don't believe it is the same thing. The misquote from Ahmadinejad is intended to convey that he wants to invade and kill all Israelis, and thus act as an excuse to nuke Iran.

George was simply paraphrasing, whilst maintaining the same meaning.

In any case, the Ahmadinejad deliberate misquote is a government sanctioned black-propaganda/fear mongering. So the scale/effect of the two are no-where near the same.

But this is my whole point; he was not just paraphrasing. He regularly says that Rumsfeld actually said this - and as far as we all seem to be currently aware, Rumsfeld didn't say this. Are you just trying to invent an argument here, for the sake of pedantry? George is saying something that is not true, and he is presenting it as fact. That is wrong no matter if you're doing it to encourage hatred of the Arab world, or hatred of neocon imperialism.

If he said something along the lines of "let's not forget, Rumsfeld has the mindset that God put their oil under other people's countries" then I would have no problem, because that is true. But he is stating as an absolute fact, on an almost weekly basis, something that is not genuine.

Are you telling me that untruths and mis-quotes are only bad if they come from the other side of the fence?

[Mandy]

Are you telling me that untruths and mis-quotes are only bad if they come from the other side of the fence?

Kate,

It is not untruths, nor misquotes. I believe it is valid para-phrasing, whilst maintaining the same meaning as the original.

[faceless]

I am, in writing this, the originator of the phrase, "misquotes and unclear para-phrasing are two cheeks of the same backside".

[nekokate]

Are you telling me that untruths and mis-quotes are only bad if they come from the other side of the fence?

Kate,

It is not untruths, nor misquotes. I believe it is valid para-phrasing, whilst maintaining the same meaning as the original.

You're starting to lose me now. How is stating repeatedly that something is a fact when it is not a fact, anything other than an untruth? In order to paraphrase, you must make your audience aware you are paraphrasing, otherwise, by definition, you are not.

When George uses this quote, he puts it forward as a fact. It is not a fact.

GG_Fan, if I attributed an unflattering quote to you in order to defame you, you would be the first to jump on it and point out that you never spoke or typed those words. Why are you refusing to accept that this is an instance in which George (and I adore him, by the way) is wrong? Unless you can prove - which you can't - that Rumsfeld actually spoke that quote, then everytime George says he did, he is mistaken, misquoting, and propogating an untruth.

I'm not labouring over this point in order to discredit George, rather I'm doing so because I believe so strongly that people like him, and me, and I assume you, who are on the right side of the political fence, should stay true to our convictions. The anti-war, anti-capitalist, anti-BS, pro-transparency, pro-honesty people need to keep each other in check. No lies, no untruths, even if we stand to benefit from them.