HarmlessRabbit, one of the problems I have with your position, is that you present possibilities as fact.
For example, you state that Iraq did not have an active nuclear weapons program, even though this is *not* a fact. After all, given the uncertainties, it is not unlikely that we will one day learn that Iraq was indeed working on nukes. You *think* that the claim is rediculous, even though it's not at all unreasonable to suspect such a thing from a man known to like WMDs.
Hell, you said it yourself:
Quote:
I <b>think</b> Powell is lying.
I <b>think</b> George Bush is lying.
I <b>think</b> Condoleeza Rice is lying.
|
Just because you <b>think</b> something does not mean it's true. I'd suggest you stop confusing what you <b>think</b> with what you actually <b>know</b>.
Going back to the topic title: we know for a fact that Powell is unsure *now* about the validity of his statements about the trailers (fact). Some people then extrapolate from this uncertainty, and claim that Powell was lying (possibility, not a fact), and that the whole Bush administration was lying about the WMDs (possibility, not a fact).
I'd suggest the following scenario: Powell and the rest of the Bush administration were convinced that Iraq had WMDs, and were constantly being fed intelligence that appeared to support that position. Naturally, they paid less attention to the few reports disputing their position (as anyone would). Given their knowledge of the background of Iraq's leader, the administration then tried to get the US public and the UN to support them in their quest to end the reign of this (in their eyes) still dangerous individual. Only afterwards do they learn that the information given to them appears to be factually incorrect.
Note that there is no mention of lying in this scenario, because the people involved are all convinced they're right. Now, can anyone *proof* that my scenario is incorrect, or even very unlikely?