4 ms·
"informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions." Except they weren't talking about available facts to be exami
by grannyg00se 13y ago
"informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions."
Except they weren't talking about available facts to be examined, and their conclusions. What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence.
It's one thing to say "because of x,yz, we think they have WMDs".
What they did was: "THEY HAVE WMDs!!!" (evidence to be examined will be provided soon, promise)
- jebblue 13y ago>> What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. Clinton stated they had WMD's long before Bush. There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. The truth the anti-Bush people need to face is ... where are those weapons today? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...
- subsection1h 13y ago> There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons in the 1980s. But Rice argued that if Iraq wasn't invaded, Saddam might use nukes.
- mikeash 13y agoThe question was not so much "do they have WMDs?" as the answer was clearly yes, they had chemical weapons we gave them. The question was, do they have any substantial quantities, do they have the ability to make more, and most importantly, do they have the ability to use them to attack us? The answer to that last question was always clearly "no". Having a nuke does you no good if you can't get it to your target.