Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (435126)	7/29/2003 4:01:36 AM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Your argument would be ridiculous if it were not so sad. Can you prove that you never molested a child? Shoplifted? Ran a red light? Then, according to your logic, you must be guilty of all of the above. To prove that something never happened is so difficult as to be nearly impossible, unless there are a small number of ways the thing could happen. So, you can prove or disprove SPECIFIC events. The report that the Iraqis were seeking yellow cake centered on documents that turned out to be forged (and, bad forgeries at that). This is the primary reason that the burden of proof is on the accuser. Otherwise, you could be hauled in for anything, and forced to 'prove' yourself innocent. The Brits stand by their intel because Blair's political life depends on it, yet offer no substantiable proof that the intel was correct. So: no proof at all. The assertion that the statement was 'factually correct' is so ironically Clintonesque. You don't cite reports from a different source UNLESS YOU BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE. Else, people would be quoting from the Enquirer everyday ("Bush has two heads!") When you quote something from a different source, in such a context and with the wording "has learned", you are making a case that you agree with the findings, and consider them to be valid evidence for your argument. In both spirit and letter, Bush was saying he BELIEVED the data. If so, then someone in his staff either bungled or lied, because the knowledge that the data was FALSE had been bouncing around the administration for three months. And, that information had already been used to remove the faulty intelligence from a previous speech. It is hilarious how the circle has completed. Clinton made the same ridiculous rationalization about have 'sex' with 'that woman'. Now, rightists defend the administration with the same illogic logic and word smithing. Only difference is, none of our troops died in the Monica scandal.