So after years of tragedy after tragedy, dozens of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians (not to mention the refugees), and thousands of dead and thousands more of horribly injured US troops... billions of money spent for this quagmire that is worse than Vietnam... Comes the revelation that the President who launched this imperialistic war knew that the Iraq of Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction. Read the link.
So if you don't educate people and you start putting very expensive engines into sub-orbital launch vehicles. That could also cause damage. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w80.htm something like that. But this is even better, so its speculation if you guide the links to Iraq. Something was there but its not there now. NOR has it been authentucated on what was there. So if there was something there n pictures and nobody claims anything is there. There is a learning gap which none wnats to teach. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/index.html
If there was video evidence of Bush kidnapping Madeleine McCann and a signed confession saying he did it, the Democrats still wouldn't impeach. They are completely without balls.
And the RightWingnuts would be howling that there was no underlying crime and if we waited 6 months, everyone would see that he was right.
Of course we can all speculate that Bush knew whether or not WMD's really existed in Iraq, but these witnesses don't do enough to really prove it. Until there's something on paper, notes to Rummy or an internal memo that leaks, this is pretty much old news.
Well those things just don't exist. Just because Bush was told the truth doesn't mean that he knew that as the truth. It's more than incompetence but it's less than evil - it's willful disregard.
So, a CIA official said that Iraq's foreign minister gave the USA documents that proved that Saddam had no WMD's. I wonder, how can documents prove something like that? Could such documents be trusted, and could they not possibly be seen as an attempt at missinformation by Iraq? Obviously in retrospect we can say that based on the fact that no WMD's were found, there must have been a serious intelligence failure on this matter, or perhaps a serious missinterpretation of intelligence. It is also possible that there was missinformation by the administration. Certainly we can speculate about the motives for going into Iraq and about the possibility of manipulation of intelligence. But, isn't it a stretch for Salon to say that 'Bush Knew that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction'? Even if they have proof that an official in Saddam's government sent some sort of paperwork, how does that constitutes proof that President Bush knew that Saddam had no WMD's? I wonder, how do you prove with documents that a country has no WMD's? Especially when it is a country that had used chemical weapons in the past. It would be interesting to see the actual documents.
I totally agree with this. It's not that he made a conscious decision to lie; rather he simply ignored what didn't fit into his warped little world view.
I think this type of logic reigns supreme here. Can you prove a negative? (or a WMD in Iraq?) http://graveyardofthegods.com/articles/cantprovenegative.html http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
The fact that there are documents, various documents, coming to the surface that suggested there might *not* be WMD, and that Saddam was *not* in cahoots with Al-Quada indicate that the president and his minions lied, a lot, to get us into the war. When they talked about how everyone supported the intelligence, how there were no doubters in the various agencies within the intelligence community, about how there was unanimous support of the belief that WMD existed, they were all lies. Too bad the news media can't seem to get beyond reporting what other people say.
the problem is in the premise: if unicorns exist, there is evidence in the fossil record. this is a completely reasonable premise, but it cannot be assumed absolutely true. you cannot establish a substantive proof with a premise that may or may not be true.