SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rich evans who wrote (5224)11/12/2005 1:26:21 PM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 543609
 
Others would use a higher standard of evidence including yourself I would guess.

Not a higher standard of evidence, perhaps, but a better rounded rationale. There's more to going to war than just determining that there is substantial evidence of Iraq having WMD or being in cahoots with the terrorists. That's just a first step.



To: rich evans who wrote (5224)11/12/2005 3:40:05 PM
From: Mary Cluney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 543609
 
I already said I would use the SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE standard as the proper risk analysis.

How about a tiny bit of evidence?

Since they couldn't find any WMD, that means there could not have been ANY evidence.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News