Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JohnGalt
The President, Rummy and Condi all said there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11. I tend to believe them and trust they have more access to intelligence than I do.

They said they had no "evidence" of a connection.

So it appears that you fail Logic 101. The lack of evidence (i.e., of a connection) is not positive proof of a non-connection.

As Rummy has said before, there are
(1) the things you know you know,
(2) the things you know you don't know, and
(3) the things you don't know you don't know.
We are "officially" in #3 land on this question, although we may "know" and are not telling yet.

And, oh-by-the-way, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence, as has been pointed out here.

Washington-speak has, post Janet Reno, apparently required that any evidence less than a smoking gun must be called "no evidence", although I don't understand why Rummy and the Bush people don't flat-out reject that bromide -- I suspect that they've thought it through, gamed it out, and concluded that the press will outspin them if they try to re-assert a normal understanding of the word.

17 posted on 09/24/2003 7:37:15 AM PDT by WL-law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: WL-law
Depends what the meaning of 'evidence' is?

LOL
19 posted on 09/24/2003 7:53:07 AM PDT by JohnGalt (More Todd Beamers, Fewer Ivy Leaguers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson