ah! ok..I underdstand now..thanks..
I dont need proof the WMD's were there..
I know they were there..
everyone knows they were there..
the fact they existed is not in dispute..
the only question is *when* they were there and when they were removed..
so im not contradicting myself..
Im still saying "you shouldnt believe, as an absolute fact, that "bush lied" when there is no evidence to support the accusation that he lied"..
saying "bush lied" implies there were never
ANY WMD's..thats flat out false.
yes, its possible they were gone before Bush used them as justification..but that is unlikely..
and it cant be proved either way, because no one has yet admitted when and where they were moved or destroyed..
its far more likely they disappeared during the 6 month time lag between the time Bush made it clear were going to Iraq (September 2002) and the time we actually got there (March 2003)..
6 months is enough time to hide or destroy anything you dont want found..
and even before September 12, 2002 it was pretty obvious the US was probably coming to Iraq..
really they had over a year "notice"..
Its like the police announcing on the evening news and newspspers "one year from now will be raiding the known drug house at 25 main street....bad guys..take note!"
"only 6 months until the big raid on the drug house"..
"countdown to the big drug house raid..only 3 weeks remaining"..
then they get there, kick down the door, and find a bunch of old ladies reading their bibles..
then the media kicks up the stories about "those evil, nasty police picking on those innocent old ladies in the drug house..the police are bad..they didnt find ANY evidence those old ladies were involved in drugs! the police LIED about the whole thing!" etc etc..
tell me how that analogy is not valid!
just because something isnt found, doesnt mean it didnt exist..
and in this case, it is known for a fact it did exist..it was just gone by the time we got there to look for it...which is not "proof" of a "lie"..
Scot