WMDs

[Theophylact]

From Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo:

Sometimes a reader writes in with a letter of such transcendent comedic value that I've just got to share it with you.

[tmx468]

I like the guys logic though..

[CERuppel]

This is one that I am waiting for to be used in a college paper. SOmething along the lines of "The President used this arguement in front of congress".

The sheer precident that this sets up is next to unreal. That just because a person dosen't have a criminal record dosen't mean they aren't a criminal. Just because a person isn't covered in blood and screaming dosen't mean that they aren't a mad killer.

Are we going to see this used as the key stone of the next polititical campaign? Where the canidates will have to defned themselves against an endless stream of accusations? Based on the "positive proof" defense, rather than the "positive proof" accusation?

[CERuppel]

You know, I just had a moment of thought regarding this new approach to law.

That's right. LAW. You see the President of the USA has entered into precedent a reversal of common legal practice.

Currently, a charge must have proof positive. It must prove by the evidence that something has happened. The defense need only prove that this MAY not have happened.

But Bush wants it reversed.

Under this new precedent, the charge is valid so long as it MAY have happened. The defense needs to prove that it did not happen.

Did I express that clearly? (If you can help, then please DO).

Does anyone else see what this means to our justice system?

Does this scare anyone else?

Maybe Iron Man Epidemic can send that to Bush via email to reassure Bush.

BTW, Duke does have Bush's Hotmail ID.

[Epidemic]

I do not like the idea of a pre-emptive strike anywhere.

Of course in a country operating under a cease fire agreement the rules are a bit different. In actuallity one of the reasons I give a pass to the decision to blow up saddam is because it should have been done in 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 and each day they resisted having inspectors return. The presidents during that period made a big boo boo by making saddams people suffer beyond a year of non compliance.

I see no right way to deal with someone who must be "contained indefinitely" where the product of that containment is the suffering of those who do not deserve to suffer.

Simply on that grounds alone war should have been waged or restrictions lifted. Of course the lifting of restrictions would have posed a greater risk. Cease fire was broken in repeated attacks on US planes under UN mandate.

Uranium lie (I still say not a lie unless Bush knew the UK was lying) should be researched and if found to be a lie I agree action should be taken. When you tell mom that your brother went to billy's house and he turns out not to be there is that a lie. Even if your brother told you that is where you would be and the note he left for mom was written by your sister. perhaps your brother is a liar, your sister is a liar but it does not make you a liar unless you were in on it even if you knew that the note was written by your sister. You brother had not lied to you before, He had told you he was a billy's house, the note supported it.

You insinuating Bush was not in on it?

What do you think he is?

Stupid?

He's at the center of power, the Most powerful man in the Universe, calling all shots, and he doesn't know what's going on?

[MTAtech]

One just has to love the denyability. There was a time when presidents wrote their own speeches and took responsibility for what they said. Now, Bush is saying, 'I'm not responsible because other people write it and tell me what to say.'

How pathetic. How much has our standards in presidents dropped since Truman said, "the buck stops here."

See this too:
http://www.techimo.com/forum/showthr...756#post738756

Was it Truman or Teddy Roosevelt?

But MTA, you are comparing Historic World figures to a Texan oil man. Not a fair comparison.

[Epidemic]

The buck has not landed yet.

We have a report which was debunked.
We have supposed alternate sources.
No one has said that saddam was not trying to acquire Yellow Cake uraniun. This is all that was asserted.

It has been said that it was unlikely that he acquired it but not that he did not seek it. If he was seeking it with his resouces there is a good chance at some point he would acquire it.

The buck has not landed. When it lands someone may claim it.

Are you claiming that Bush should claim the buck if it is in reality true just to make you happy. Or should he just say that part of the data used was faulty but he still is going to regard the word of tony blair unless that proves to be false.