Quote:
Originally posted by crewsor
I think she makes quite a few valid points. A lot of pre-war predictions made by the anti-war movement never materialized and now they act as though they were on the money.
|
Ditto for the pro-war movement. Finding WsMD, links between terror and Saddam, etc.
And Liquor Dealer, just because one judge finds
in civil court that the families had "shown 'albeit barely' that Iraq had provided material support to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida" doesn't mean they are criminally liable. Witness OJ.
EDIT:
Christ, the more I read this article, the more I wonder why you linked it twice. It does more damage to your argument than good. "the standard of proof required for the case was much lower than that in a normal civil action," "Even so, he said that the families had only scraped over the evidential bar," "most of the evidence the families had tried to introduce -- such as TV interviews with unidentified Iraqi defectors -- was 'classically hearsay' or even 'multiple hearsay' -- second or third hand."
This is hilarious!