Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels

[Coyote]

Sheesh. As many times as Ive repeated it and the several different ways I have expressed it and you are still are just as clueless when we began this silly exchange. The absence of evidence is the absence of evidence. Nothing more. It is not evidence of anything. ESPECIALLY in the case of alleged, secretive cooperation between a terrorist organization and a nations government. Im sure there is all kinds of nasty **** our government has done against foreign governments, where not a shread of evidence even exists.

No. It is not me that is clueless. It is you who are ducking the essential lie here.

Why did they wait until 6 months after the invasion of Iraq to state there there was no evidence supporting this rumor? The evidence (or lack of) hadn't changed. The only reason I can see is to push their agenda - attack Iraq.

And, as of yet - there is not one of their publically stated reasons for attacking Iraq have been shown to have any merit. If there had not been a belief (enouraged and not dispelled by truth) that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam, the public might not have supported this war. This kind of deliberate deception is a lie.

 

[jb_1430]

No. It is not me that is clueless. It is you who are ducking the essential lie here.

Besides this whole silliness that its not what he said that was a lie, but what he didnt say, you still have the fact that we dont know for certain if Saddam was involved or not, as well you have statements such as

But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_sept26.html

from 2002, and others, that make this whole theory of yours even more ridiculous.

 

[Coyote]

Besides this whole silliness that its not what he said that was a lie, but what he didnt say, you still have the fact that we dont know for certain if Saddam was involved or not, as well you have statements such as



from 2002, and others, that make this whole theory of yours even more ridiculous.

I chose statements from 2002 to illustrate what we knew before the invasion.

Those opinions have not changed since then - there is still no evidence. At what point then - according to your bizarre sense of truth - does no evidence become - "not"?

A lie is a lie whether it is a lie of ommission or a lie of commission. It is still a deliberate intent to deceive. Unless you are Clinton. Or yourself.

You have yet to offer anything to support your statements.

 

[jb_1430]

I chose statements from 2002 to illustrate what we knew before the invasion.

And I choose 2002 to show that you are wrong.

 

[Coyote]

And I choose 2002 to show that you are wrong.

You're getting tiresome. You continually fail to support your points.

The information today reaches the same conclusion as the information in 2002: no link.

Your continual attempts to try to justify an act of deceit by dodging the real issue are pathetic.

 

[jb_1430]

You're getting tiresome. You continually fail to support your points.

The information today reaches the same conclusion as the information in 2002: no link.

Your continual attempts to try to justify an act of deceit by dodging the real issue are pathetic.

????uuuh actually I have addressed the issue and it sails right over your head every time. You claim they "refuse to publically acknowledge the truth" and I provide the quotes form the press conference where the white house spokesman, on National TV publically aknowledges there is no evidence in 2002, and your still sitting there like an idiot claiming I dodge the isssue,??? What issue is that einstein?

 

[Coyote]

Experts have consistently stated there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. That is a fact that existed prior to the invasion.

Yet, not until after the invasion did the White House finally state with finality that there is not evidence supporting a link - we have had no evidence. In otherwords there isn't any and never was any.

Yet you still claim there was no deceit involved....you sound like Clinton.

 

[jb_1430]

Experts have consistently stated there is no evidence of a link between Iraq and 9/11. That is a fact that existed prior to the invasion.

Yet, not until after the invasion did the White House finally state with finality that there is not evidence supporting a link - we have had no evidence.

D E L U S I O N A L ! ! ! ! !

September 26, 2002

QUESTION: Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/excerpts_sept26.html