"it is impossible to prove a negative"

[No2W2004]

I read this in Richard Clarke's book. He was describing one of the findings from a NSA exersise...that it wasn't possible to prove that Al Qaeda (in this instance) did not have WMDs.

It dawned on me that this is the key to shrubco's neocon foreign policy...that no one can prove that Saddam didn't possess WMDs. Taking this forward, one can apply it to any group or country. Prove that Syria does not currently possess WMDs. Hell, prove CANADA does not possess WMDs. Sure, you can take their word for it...you can send inspectors who don't find any, you can invade their lands and never find any WMDs, but that still does not prove with 100% certainty that they did not have WMDs. Shrubco can say the WMDs were moved, or they were destroyed, or they are still hidden, whatever excuse they can get away with.

That's why Shrubco will get away with their atrocities. Because they can't be proved wrong.

[H2O Man]

1. While that is their method,

all rational people seem to agree that the administration has been proven wrong on these issues. Just one example would be when Joseph Wilson exposed them as liars concerning the African business.

[treepig]

2. of course, it follows that it is impossible to prove

that it is impossible to prove a negative.

right? :crazy:

[Bandit]

3. Prove you aren't a LIAR Mr. Bush*

:shrug:

[DinahMoeHum]

4. Should be the other way around - Bushco should be pressed to

prove their assertions about the WMDs, etc.

The burden should NOT be on US to prove them wrong - it should be on THEM to prove they are right.

:bounce:

[papau]

5. Bush's line is "It could have been worse" - and the media says yes that

is true.

end of story.

No matter how bad he does, he could have done worse - and no doubt in the media's mind "What would Kerry have done differently", and "Kerry would have done worse" are the logical spin of everyday's events through November.