|
Outside Asylum Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing. |
|
|
|
Outside Asylum Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing. |
|
In Reply to: Where shall I start posted by orejones on October 7, 2004 at 03:09:01:
"RUMSFELD: I tell you, I'm not going to answer the question. I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over the period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was. To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two. There are--I just read an intelligence report recently about one person who's connected to al Qaeda, who was in and out of Iraq, and there's the most tortured description of why he might have had a relationship, and why he might not have had a relationship. There are reports about people in Saddam Hussein's intelligence service meeting in one country or another with al Qaeda people from one person to another, which may have been indicative of something, or may not have been. It may have been something that was not representative of a hard linkage."The problem that most of you have here and I realize this now, is that absent concrete evidence to the contrary, the person or entity is always innocent. This is great for jurisprudence, where the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt (85-95%?) that a crime was commmitted. Since we didn't find actual WMDs in the here and now, they do not exist, even though the evidence that they did exist is abundantly clear. I could hide 10 $100 bills w/i my four condo walls here and ask you to look for them over a week or two, allowing you to keep them if you locate them. Chances are you won't find them, so does that mean that they are not hidden there, somewhere?
The Secretary states:
"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two."
However, in the very next sentence, he gives two examples of a link that may or may not pan out. Nobody says that the Secretary is correct 100% of the time. People are arguing that CIA Dir. George Tennent, MI5 and Russian Intelligence all got WMDs wrong. The spy business isn't 100%. Also, a lack of hard evidence in not the inverse of existence. It just means that you can't prove it.
I gave you and Jaiva a verfiable fact. Abdul Yasin was living openly in Baghdad. Abdul Yasin worked for AQ and Abdul Yasin was the only WTC '93 Bomber to get away. Where did he go? Why Baghdad of course...that last bastion of rigorously controlled, secular, ME society.
As far as your other few points are concerned, I'm not even going to read them, let alone comment. I've spent too much time with you as it is. The last thing in the world that I want to do, is attempt to change your POV.
You win, if it makes you happy?
Take care, Chris
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Hi I'm Bernardo, the most recent graduate of the Mike Bates Reading School... - Chris Garrett 10/7/0410:56:11 10/7/04 (2)
- based on you type of logic.... - JamesV 12:08:26 10/7/04 (1)
- Thanks for the great dialogue James... - Chris Garrett 22:19:14 10/7/04 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
