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

[jb_1430]

You are dodging the issue.

Between 9/13/01 and the invasion of Iraq the Administration could have quelled the rumor with truth. It didn't.

There was no rumor. Only a decade of experience with Saddam Hussein.
You seem to start with the assumption that if Saddam was involved in 9/11, there would be evidence of this involvement and we would find it. I think the opposite assumption would be a safer bet.

 

[Coyote]

There was no rumor. Only a decade of experience with Saddam Hussein.
You seem to start with the assumption that if Saddam was involved in 9/11, there would be evidence of this involvement and we would find it. I think the opposite assumption would be a safer bet.

No, there were rumors attempting to link it. It could easily have been denied by the truth. But it wasn't, was it? No sources came up with any sort of credible evidence of a link early on.

I call that lying. Lying to get us into a war.

 

[jb_1430]

No, there were rumors attempting to link it. It could easily have been denied by the truth. But it wasn't, was it? No sources came up with any sort of credible evidence of a link early on.

I call that lying. Lying to get us into a war.

The truth? the truth is not known to any degree of certainty. A Manhattan judge held that Saddam was liable for damages for 9/11 in a default judgement. After the 93 WTC bombing and the cruise missile attack on Iraq in response, Richard Clarke says we sent “a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis saying, ‘If you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government.'". But now its the Bush administrations job to correct the impression made by the Clinton administration???? Ridiculous.
I dont think you even know what a lie is.

 

[Coyote]

The truth? the truth is not known to any degree of certainty. A Manhattan judge held that Saddam was liable for damages for 9/11 in a default judgement. After the 93 WTC bombing and the cruise missile attack on Iraq in response, Richard Clarke says we sent “a very clear message through diplomatic channels to the Iraqis saying, ‘If you do any terrorism against the United States again, it won't just be Iraqi intelligence headquarters, it'll be your whole government.'". But now its the Bush administrations job to correct the impression made by the Clinton administration???? Ridiculous.
I dont think you even know what a lie is.

Ridiculous? Ridiculous is your attempt at dodging the real issue here by bringing in all this other stuff and going back to the Clinton Administration. Your definition of a lie is as dodgy as Clinton's "depends what the definition of "is" is".

The truth is in three facts:

- a rumor started and persisted that Saddam was linked to 9/11 as the case was being built for the war

- the administration knew this rumor was false (as stated by statements made by several officials that there was no credible evidence of a link and never had been.)

- these statements were not made until after (6 months after) the start of the war.

Now connect the dots.

 

[jb_1430]

The truth is in three facts:

- a rumor started and persisted that Saddam was linked to 9/11 as the case was being built for the war

Noooo einstein. the belief existed as soon as the planes slammed into the towers.

 

[Coyote]

Noooo einstein. the belief existed as soon as the planes slammed into the towers.

Quit dodging...

the administration knew this rumor was false (as stated by statements made by several officials that there was no credible evidence of a link and never had been.)

 

[jb_1430]

Quit dodging...

the administration knew this rumor was false (as stated by statements made by several officials that there was no credible evidence of a link and never had been.)

Again with this assumption that if Saddam was involved, evidence would exists and our all knowing intelligence agencies would find it. Not only do you not comprehend the meaning of 'lie", it seems your having trouble with the meaning of "false".

 

[Coyote]

Again with this assumption that if Saddam was involved, evidence would exists and our all knowing intelligence agencies would find it. Not only do you not comprehend the meaning of 'lie", it seems your having trouble with the meaning of "false".

From an article dated March 14, 2003:

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime​

.


This has been repeatedly confirmed. You are suggesting it's appropriate to act on a lack of any credible evidence when it comes to committing war. How irresponsible is that?

And it still doesn't get at the "lie". The Administration knew this, and knew the rumor was false and verified it 6 months after the invasion.

 

[jb_1430]

OOOOhhh what bull shiite. Nothing of the sort has been verified as false. If it had been, THEN you would have a point. It hasnt, you dont.

From an article dated March 14, 2003:

Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime​

.


This has been repeatedly confirmed. You are suggesting it's appropriate to act on a lack of any credible evidence when it comes to committing war. How irresponsible is that?

And it still doesn't get at the "lie". The Administration knew this, and knew the rumor was false and verified it 6 months after the invasion.

 

[9sublime]

Rather than simply referring to it as bullsh1te, why don't you actually argue the point, maybe even quote a source or two? I mean, I don't think anyones going to be swayed by your last post.

 

[Coyote]

OOOOhhh what bull shiite. Nothing of the sort has been verified as false. If it had been, THEN you would have a point. It hasnt, you dont.

Bush: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th"

 

[jb_1430]

Rather than simply referring to it as bullsh1te, why don't you actually argue the point, maybe even quote a source or two? I mean, I don't think anyones going to be swayed by your last post.

???? He is the one who claims there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. And that this has been verified. I dont claim to have the information to know one way or another and can only speculate what is likely. And you want me to quote something???? Obviously you also cant understand my simple and plain arguement. The absence of evidence doesnt prove anything. Doesnt verify anything.

 

[jb_1430]

Bush: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11th"

OOhhh go tell Steve Fossett's wife that it has been "verified" and "confirmed" that he is not dead. Maybe she can explain to you why the absence of a shread of evidence that he is dead, isnt really a confirmation that he is alive.

 

[9sublime]

Wow. Anyone questioning the Bush adminitstration really gets you going doesn't it.

 

[vyo476]

Gee, I'm so glad I brought this thread up again.

Helped a lot.