Prove to us we shouldn't invade you or The Flawed Logic of Dick Cheney (1249 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.37 on 61 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Zoidberg (View user info) at 2005-11-22 15:07:31 EST
Our Halliburton lovin', CIA spy revealin', heart attack having Vice President said something the other day that gave me pause. In defending the administration's decision to invade, he said that, "We never had the burden of proof," before adding that it had actually been up to Saddam to prove that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
This was met with accolades and cheers from a somewhat adoring public.
However what floored me was how this obvious logical fallacy escaped the public's attention. Where were the law professors and political commentators calling Mr. Cheney to task for an unreachable and unattainable standard of proof?
The burden of proof lies with the AFFIRMATIVE because it is logically IMPOSSIBLE to prove a negative existential claim.
Here is a quick breakdown.
Existential claim - G_d exists.
Negative Existential claim - G_d doesn't exist.
In this instance it would be on the Affirmative or existential claim to provide evidence for G_d not existing. The affirmative can't say "You have no proof that He doesn't exist, so he must." That is a logical fallacy.
By Mr. Cheney's way of doing things, our foreign policy in regards to Weapons of Mass Destruction comes down to this. "Prove to us why we shouldn't invade you."
A quick recap for the slow to read.
Existential claim - WMD's exist.
Negative Existential claim - WMD's don't exist
Mr. Cheney's way of doing things - Prove it.
There is simply NO WAY to prove a negative existential claim.
"Prove you don't have weapons of mass destruction."
"Ok this is where they used to be. It's empty now."
"How do we know you didn't move them?"
"Here is the paperwork."
"How do we know you didn't forge the paperwork?"
"Here, watch us destroy them."
"How do we know those are actually WMD's and not fake missiles?"
"Here, watch us test them on this goat"
"How do we know that's all of them? You could have kept just one bit to test and hidden the rest."
"Because here is the paperwork."
"How do we know it wasn't forged."
on and on ad nauseam.
People are presumed innocent until proven guilty for this very reason. It is far more difficult (if not impossible a lot of times) to prove yourself innocent when you the defendant are given the burden of proof.
Ask ANY logician. Hell, ask any lawyer. You can't prove a negative existential. Not that Saddam was a nice guy by any means, but Cheney saying this is as good as admitting that NOTHING Saddam could have done could have would have prevented the invasion.
I have another set of Burden of Proof statements for you Mr. Cheney. And since the burden of proof now falls according to your rules, we'll continue on in the same vein.
Existential - Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration lied to the American people and should be impeached.
Negative Existential - Dick Cheney and the Bush Administration did NOT lie to the American people and should NOT be impeached.
Okay Mr. Cheney. The burden of proof lies with you. Prove the negative. We'll all be waiting.
User Reviews
Submitted by BranDo (user info) at 2006-03-08 18:30:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well put.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-08 18:24:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:44:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
And what I'm getting at is that you are basing your entire understanding of what the White House's case was on this one (probably) misspoken phrase. You are refusing to admit, common sense be damned, that Cheney MOST LIKELY did not mean that Saddam would need to prove a negative.
I don't care how much you dislike the administration, it is more probable that Cheney mispoke, and that had he stated things the way I did in my very first reply here (the burden was for Saddam to prove that he had complied with UN resolutions), your argument here wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
People generally aren't crazy. That's why I think you are being dishonest here. You are trying to play as if the whole war can be laid at the feet of a symantic fuck-up.
BUT!! you will (I hope not) say, it wasn't a symantic fuck-up! That's what Cheney really meant!
If you are so far gone as to believe that, there is no reasoning with you.
---------------------------
I don't believe it was a fuck up at all. How can you!?!? With some of the shit that comes out of fucking Bush's mouth (i.e. "you're either WITH us or you are AGAINST us"), it wouldn't surprise me one fucking bit that's EXACTLY what he meant. He just doesn't expect the average American to see through the bullshit because, frankly, Americans are fucking dumbasses.
Anytime anyone points out the fallacies of these obviously professional logicians we call our leaders, Teeph is right there to tell you you're being "dishonest" and "misrepresenting facts".
What. fucking. EVER.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-08 18:18:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I wish I could say this was the ONLY instance of flawed logic coming from this administration.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-08 18:15:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think we owe Saddam one dictatorship. We are charging him with crimes in a country where he had absolute rule... how the fuck do you break a law when you are the end all of declaring them?
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2006-03-08 18:07:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:59:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
If I write the word G_d intact, I can't close the window ever because that would be in effect destroying the word. I leave the "o" out because it's a matter of respect for me.
Arguably if I really wanted to respect Him I'd follow his orders about not fucking other men up the ass, but baby steps. Baby steps.
---
THAT made me laugh a good bit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-08 17:48:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-22 22:55:14 (#)
Ranking: 2
In 50 years time the Iraq war will be seen as a huge mistake.
As usual, the Democrats have to wait until it is totally irrelevant before they are proven right, and that is their burden.
-------
yep
Submitted by ChristPuncher (user info) at 2006-03-08 17:29:18 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Bob_Dole (user info) at 2005-12-24 01:33:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:21:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
How come you leave the "o" out of God?
---------------------------
jew? my sister and some relitaves do that G_d thing, ... so, it's a guess. I personally dont think he minds. anyway, my rabbi said it was ok.
Submitted by LiquidPaper (user info) at 2005-12-24 01:23:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
so you're the fucking faggot everyone keeps talking about? do me a favor and take that cock that is shoved so far up your ass out. i hate fags.
Submitted by KC_DC (user info) at 2005-12-20 04:00:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
you're a dumb ass loser. hahahahahahaha!
Submitted by Snuffleupagus (user info) at 2005-11-28 22:45:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"In this instance it would be on the Affirmative or existential claim to provide evidence for G_d not existing."
Was that supposed to be "G_d existing." instead of "G_d not existing."?
Clever hiding of the word Gad, but we all know you meant Gad. What else could it have been?
Submitted by williamson (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:14:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Good evening.
The last scene was interesting from the point of view of a professional logician because it contained a number of logical fallacies; that is, invalid propositional constructions and syllogistic forms, of the type so often committed by my wife. "All wood burns," states Sir Bedevere. "Therefore," he concludes, "all that burns is wood." This is, of course, pure bullshit. Universal affirmatives can only be partially converted: all of Alma Cogan is dead, but only some of the class of dead people are Alma Cogan. "Oh yes," one would think.
However, my wife does not understand this necessary limitation of the conversion of a proposition; consequently, she does not understand me. For how can a woman expect to appreciate a professor of logic, if the simplest cloth-eared syllogism causes her to flounder.
For example, given the premise, "all fish live underwater" and "all mackerel are fish", my wife will conclude, not that "all mackerel live underwater", but that "if she buys kippers it will not rain", or that "trout live in trees", or even that "I do not love her any more." This she calls "using her intuition". I call it "crap", and it gets me very *irritated* because it is not logical.
"There will be no supper tonight," she will sometimes cry upon my return home. "Why not?" I will ask. "Because I have been screwing the milkman all day," she will say, quite oblivious of the howling error she has made. "But," I will wearily point out, "even given that the activities of screwing the milkman and getting supper are mutually exclusive, now that the screwing is over, surely then, supper may, logically, be got." "You don't love me any more," she will now often postulate. "If you did, you would give me one now and again, so that I would not have to rely on that rancid Pakistani for my orgasms." "I will give you one after you have got me my supper," I now usually scream, "but not before" -- as you understand, making her bang contingent on the arrival of my supper.
"God, you turn me on when you're angry, you ancient brute!" she now mysteriously deduces, forcing her sweetly throbbing tongue down my throat. "Fuck supper!" I now invariably conclude, throwing logic somewhat joyously to the four winds, and so we thrash about on our milk-stained floor, transported by animal passion, until we sink back, exhausted, onto the cartons of yoghurt.
I'm afraid I seem to have strayed somewhat from my original brief. But in a nutshell:
Sex is more fun than logic -- one cannot prove this, but it "is" in the same sense that Mount Everest "is", or that Alma Cogan "isn't".
Goodnight.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2005-11-23 17:08:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
g_d ?
fuck off.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-11-23 08:23:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't even care.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-23 07:59:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
see below for classic example of "excluded middle" logical fallacy, ie. anti-Bush = pro-Saddam.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-11-23 07:36:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-22 22:02:39 (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Mr. Ninja needs to rub off his boner for the Bush administration already.
------------------------------------
Wow, what a well balanced argument. It is so cohesive and persuasive I am almost convinced. Your witty argument has backed me into a corner, and I find that my only response is, why don't you rub off your boner for saddam.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2005-11-22 22:55:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
In 50 years time the Iraq war will be seen as a huge mistake.
As usual, the Democrats have to wait until it is totally irrelevant before they are proven right, and that is their burden.
Submitted by TheSpook (user info) at 2005-11-22 22:02:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I think Mr. Ninja needs to rub off his boner for the Bush administration already.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-11-22 21:24:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 19:00:26 (#)
Ranking: 0
Not that I'm trumpeting for Saddam's cause either Indo, but if you recall, Scott Ritter pointed out the main reason the UN inspection teams were kicked out was because intel agents were using them as a cover.
I'm all for our spies doing what they need to do in order to spy, but if we get caught doing it, we shouldn't expect that country to put up with our obvious spying just because we're bigger.
---------------------------------------
How many times were they kicked out? How many places were they never allowed to go? And I could be wrong but I thought that was just an excuse that Saddam was making and that there was never any proof.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-22 20:44:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:59:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
If I write the word G_d intact, I can't close the window ever because that would be in effect destroying the word. I leave the "o" out because it's a matter of respect for me.
Arguably if I really wanted to respect Him I'd follow his orders about not fucking other men up the ass, but baby steps. Baby steps.
--------------------------------
This is fucking hilarious.
Submitted by thorpe (user info) at 2005-11-22 20:42:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Well, obviously.
Actually send this to him.
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2005-11-22 20:35:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Word.
I just thought I'd inform you that the ad on the bottom of your post (at least for me) has a link for meeting military men. Being an obvious fan of irony, I thought you'd appreciate that.
Submitted by Sacrilicious (user info) at 2005-11-22 19:51:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
YES.
Submitted by windowsrcold (user info) at 2005-11-22 19:11:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I give +2 because this post made my mind work. Logic is flawed and the final proof of it's flaw was in the fact that we still have found no WMD's. Americans would be seriously fucked if all of our government worked off of this logic.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 19:00:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Not that I'm trumpeting for Saddam's cause either Indo, but if you recall, Scott Ritter pointed out the main reason the UN inspection teams were kicked out was because intel agents were using them as a cover.
I'm all for our spies doing what they need to do in order to spy, but if we get caught doing it, we shouldn't expect that country to put up with our obvious spying just because we're bigger.
Submitted by G-prime (user info) at 2005-11-22 18:34:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:59:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
If I write the word G_d intact, I can't close the window ever because that would be in effect destroying the word. I leave the "o" out because it's a matter of respect for me.
Arguably if I really wanted to respect Him I'd follow his orders about not fucking other men up the ass, but baby steps. Baby steps.
=====================================
What is the difference if you type it or if it is already there? If I type God, can you not close the window? Why destroy MY God, but not your God?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-11-22 18:20:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 17:22:59 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not laying the blame for the war on a semantic fuck up. I'm blaming it on flawed logic.
Until either of us finds the transcript I don't think we can fully defend either side, but Im quite convinced Mr. Cheney was serious.
That sort of cowboy logic is what this administration has built it's success on. Henry Kissinger commented on it at length, this "in your face unilateralism" embraced by neocon reaganites.
"No, you prove you DONT have it." gels perfectly with the line the administration has been serving as to the responsibilities of the United States in foreign relations.
----------------------------------------------
I don't think you are getting Teeph's point.
I don't think that is what cheney really meant, especially not in absolutes. Yes he wanted proof that Saddam had no WMD. Logicalll you are correct he can't really prove 100% that he didn't have them, but the fact is he was not allowing UN inspectors to do their job and look for them.
Submitted by Required_Reading (user info) at 2005-11-22 17:58:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:40:07 (#)
Ranking: 2
cheney is probably one of the worst humans alive
---------------------------------------------------------
Cheney is a werewolf in wolves' clothing.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 17:22:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not laying the blame for the war on a semantic fuck up. I'm blaming it on flawed logic.
Until either of us finds the transcript I don't think we can fully defend either side, but Im quite convinced Mr. Cheney was serious.
That sort of cowboy logic is what this administration has built it's success on. Henry Kissinger commented on it at length, this "in your face unilateralism" embraced by neocon reaganites.
"No, you prove you DONT have it." gels perfectly with the line the administration has been serving as to the responsibilities of the United States in foreign relations.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:59:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
yeah, but like it matters. politicians are just the face in front of the machine.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:54:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
given Cheney's track record Teeph, most people wouldn't be as quick to defend him.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:44:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
And what I'm getting at is that you are basing your entire understanding of what the White House's case was on this one (probably) misspoken phrase. You are refusing to admit, common sense be damned, that Cheney MOST LIKELY did not mean that Saddam would need to prove a negative.
I don't care how much you dislike the administration, it is more probable that Cheney mispoke, and that had he stated things the way I did in my very first reply here (the burden was for Saddam to prove that he had complied with UN resolutions), your argument here wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
People generally aren't crazy. That's why I think you are being dishonest here. You are trying to play as if the whole war can be laid at the feet of a symantic fuck-up.
BUT!! you will (I hope not) say, it wasn't a symantic fuck-up! That's what Cheney really meant!
If you are so far gone as to believe that, there is no reasoning with you.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:42:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
What if they came out and admitted that all along they knew there were no WMD's and that Saddam was not in any way connected with 9/11 but that they thought a war would just be good clean fun?
I like how Republicans talk on and on about "personal responsibility" and then seem completely unable to admit they were wrong, about anything, ever.
Oh I get it, "personal responsibility" means "blame Clinton". it's all so clear to me now.
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:34:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Teeph - Whether he's right or wrong about BoP isn't the issue. Nor is the fact that Slick Willy tried his hand at some legalistic mumbo jumbo and got away with it.
Cheney's declaration that it was up to Saddam to prove that he didn't have weapons of mass destruction shows us the standard the administration used to justify itself going to war. Recall, most of the criticism about the Administration's WMD case centers around its use of weak circumstantial evidence, and accusations that it falsified and exaggerated much of it. Mr. Cheney in effect said that he had no need to PROVE the white house's accusations, as Saddam's inability to disprove the allegations was sufficient cause for war.
Whether or not Dick Cheney knew the rules for burden of proof is rather moot. My point, though perhaps not as clearly expressed as I should have made it, is that Cheney and by extension the White House's case for war was based on flawed logic. It was based on a standard that Saddam would have no chance of meeting.
I find that more disturbing then anything else.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:58:39 (#)
Ranking: 0
Zoid - I don't doubt that your quotation is accurate, but look at the way people are responding to the way you've set up the issue here.
"We should invade Russia, etc." (no offense PP)
Cheney isn't a lawyer and he's probably not even a philosophy minor (meaning: someone whose take some logic classes). What you are doing here is trying to affix a legalistic interpretation on a comment which was not intended as such. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that you are expecting a level of legalistic specificity in the language coming out of a press conference.
I think that's dishonest.
Look, you could have Cheney (probably) inadvertently saying that Saddam would have to prove a negative in order to prevent invasion, or you could have Clinton saying "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Polar opposites.
One's a lawyer, one isn't.
Which is more disgusting?
Submitted by inion_de_trua (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:23:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
at least his parents aptly named him...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:23:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:29:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, hurriedly typed there Yellow
Teeph, I've been trying to find the transcript so I can get his words exactly, but my wording about it being his responsibility to "prove he didnt have wmd" is lifted straight from the AP article.
------------------------
I think his point was that there was evidence pointing to him having WMD (maybe some was skewed, maybe some was just from people who wanted attention and should have been discounted, but there was evidence pointing to it), with him not allowing UN inspectors to go where they wanted they had no choice but to believe that he did.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:20:03 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
"NOTHING Saddam could have done could have would have prevented the invasion."
Maybe letting the inspectors have free reign like he was supposed to would have done the trick.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:13:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:59:46 (#)
Ranking: 0
Arguably if I really wanted to respect Him I'd follow his orders about not fucking other men up the ass, but baby steps. Baby steps.
=======================================
That made me laugh and gag simultaneously. I choked and nearly died. You'll be hearing from my attorney.
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:12:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"that would be in effect destroying the word."
Huh?
Say the word
and you'll be free
Say the word
and be like me
Say the word
I'm thinkin' of
Have you heard
the word is love
It's so fine
It's sunshine
It's the word, love
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:03:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Window? You religious people are weird.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 16:01:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That may be one of the funniest things I've ever read.
(The G_d/baby-steps thing.)
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:59:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If I write the word G_d intact, I can't close the window ever because that would be in effect destroying the word. I leave the "o" out because it's a matter of respect for me.
Arguably if I really wanted to respect Him I'd follow his orders about not fucking other men up the ass, but baby steps. Baby steps.
Submitted by Fartman (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:58:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Momma's little baby loves
shortnin, shortnin
Momma's little baby loves
shortnin bread.
Linkwhore WOO! http://www.ubersite.com/m/39147
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:58:39 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Zoid - I don't doubt that your quotation is accurate, but look at the way people are responding to the way you've set up the issue here.
"We should invade Russia, etc." (no offense PP)
Cheney isn't a lawyer and he's probably not even a philosophy minor (meaning: someone whose take some logic classes). What you are doing here is trying to affix a legalistic interpretation on a comment which was not intended as such. Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that you are expecting a level of legalistic specificity in the language coming out of a press conference.
I think that's dishonest.
Look, you could have Cheney (probably) inadvertently saying that Saddam would have to prove a negative in order to prevent invasion, or you could have Clinton saying "that depends on what your definition of 'is' is." Polar opposites.
One's a lawyer, one isn't.
Which is more disgusting?
Submitted by Orgasmatron (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:53:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:21:43 (#)
Ranking: 2
How come you leave the "o" out of God?
Submitted by RyuFu (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:47:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I love me some logic.
Submitted by PokeyPecker (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:43:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Based on that logic we need to invade Russia, England, France, China, India, Isreal, Pakistan and the United States, because all those countries have verifiable weapons of mass destruction; nuclear warheads.
Let's get it on!
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:43:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
since when is logic ever employed at the White House?
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:41:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Teephphah wants to kill Arabs, he told me so
Submitted by Death_Metal_Dude (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:40:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
cheney is probably one of the worst humans alive
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:35:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Bush and Cheney are dishonest?
Holy Fuck!
Submitted by Zoidberg (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:29:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, hurriedly typed there Yellow
Teeph, I've been trying to find the transcript so I can get his words exactly, but my wording about it being his responsibility to "prove he didnt have wmd" is lifted straight from the AP article.
Submitted by joedaddy (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:22:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
if you argue with the, de facto, President of the United States
he will just, flip you off
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:21:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
what I want to know is why the follow-up question is never something like
"so when are you going to invade North Korea/Iran?"
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:21:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
How come you leave the "o" out of God?
Submitted by The_Yellow_Dart (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:18:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"In this instance it would be on the Affirmative or existential claim to provide evidence for G_d not existing."
I don't think that "not" should be in there.
Submitted by WildcatMcGee (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:18:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You're gay.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:15:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Or, you could just say that the burden of proof was on Saddam to show that he had complied with UN resolutions.
You put a lot of work into this, but it is really just a matter of rephrasing the issue, isn't it? Or are you just trying to be obtuse?
What am I missing here?
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:15:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I can see the conclusion of this argument:
"we HAD to invade in order to prove there were no weapons."
ps you have shaken my trust in the Vice President. I may not be able to sleep at night.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
invade me, I'm opressed.
Submitted by Tastycat (user info) at 2005-11-22 15:12:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Ok, if we lied it would show up on these polygraph test results. Here is the paperwork."
"How do we know you didn't forge the paperwork?"
"Watch us take the test."
"These things are easy to fake your way through."
"But we didn't."
"Prove it."
I like the way you think lobsterman.