# Tony Blair's speech -- "History will forgive" **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 18, 2003, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357 "2003-07-18T11:05:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/61 "2003-07-19T01:45:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Can you not at least admit that post-9/11, a President and Prime Minister might read that assessment and see a real threat? Sure, if they had already accepted that their handlers were intent on invading Iraq. The National Intelligence Estimate evidently included value judgements on whether certain scenarios were highly likely, somewhat likely, not likely. You get the idea. **Sam**. Not like you to pick the points that support your view and leave out the parts that would indicate to a thinking person that there were doubts about much of the conclusions that you seem to think the report drew. The highlights from the report do nothing but convince me that the Bush Administration blew it. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/62 "2003-07-19T02:07:07Z")
**Samclem** : Did you miss the part in the last message where I said that the report wasn’t all roses for Bush, and called into question some of his claims? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/63 "2003-07-19T02:10:35Z")
But let me offer an analogy: A prosecutor attempts to prove the guilt of a defendent. in so doing, he provides a whole bunch of evidence to the jury. Some may be rock solid, some may be reasonable, but along the way ONE piece of evidence turns out to be discredited. Does one piece of discredited evidence mean the defendent should go free? Or can we still convict based on the other pieces of evidence? What you guys are attempting to do is pick one minor piece of evidence that looks shakey, and claim that that PROVES that the President lied about the whole thing. In fact, it does nothing of the sort. And the National Intelligence Estimate, the summary of which was released today, paints a pretty good picture of the evidence, and it’s reasonable. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/64 "2003-07-19T02:20:28Z")
It’s not just one piece of the evidence has been discredited. ALL of it has. It’s just that one piece has been discredited **by their own words**. There isn’t a single piece of “evidence” of Saddam’s weapons that has stood up to being tested on the ground in Iraq. Most of what was put into the SOTU didn’t even last until the day of the invasion before being discredited. So go peddle your bullshit where the people don’t actually know any better. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/65 "2003-07-19T02:48:58Z")
Oh, please. And knock off the gratuitous insults hostility, or take it to the pit. How was ALL the evidence discredited? Cites, please. You mean just because weapons haven’t been found yet, it means that all of the intelligence of the western intelligence agencies has been discredited? Or is it more fair to say that it hasn’t yet been proven? ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/66 "2003-07-19T02:52:38Z")
I doubt that Bush would notice. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/67 "2003-07-19T03:09:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > [B > My conclusions so far: Bush did not lie. Tony Blair did not lie. Both were absolutely convinced that they were doing the right thing for their countries. There were no ulterior motives - this was not done to gain re-election, or to help out friends. Both men believe they are acting in the interests of their countries. They believe this fervently. They should be given the benefit of the doubt. > > \*\* By this reasoning Hitler should have been given the benefit of the doubt. He was absolutely convinced that he was “doing the right thing” for his country. He thought Jews were a danger to civilization and he “believed this fervently.” Ergo, “He should be given the benefit of the doubt.” Political leaders don’t get points for acting on “fervent beliefs.” When you spend lives and national treasure on a project you need more than that. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/68 "2003-07-19T03:34:10Z")
> [@](#): > > But let me offer an analogy: > . . . > And the National Intelligence Estimate, the summary of which was released today, paints a pretty good picture of the evidence, and it’s reasonable. Let me offer a different analogy than a trial and a very differnt opinion of the NIE. Instead of a trial, consider a strategic proposal for a major corporation. Listening to the two separate news reports on the “nine pages” and reading one hasty on-line report, I was struck by the similarity between the report and every **top-down** major proposal I have had the misfortune to deal with in industry. The report (written by the upper managers who have already been told the outcome they are supposed to reach) is filled with “this is probable” and “this is a reasonable conclusion” and all the supporting data (supplied by the functional people and technicians in the field) is filled with “highly dubious” and “scant evidence to support.” I do not accuse Bush of doing this for oil or to make Haliburton rich(er). I think this was done for the very simple reason that Bush had already proclaimed it the “right thing to do” during his campaign for the presidency, long before the WTC/Pentagon attack, and he had made it clear to the executives of the various intelligence groups just exactly what they were supposed to find. Claims that “The president does not read these entire reports” simply reinforce my impression that the man is ideologically driven and intellectually lazy. (I do not believe he is stupid.) If he is going to order a war against a country that does not threaten us (with a horribly ill-considered approach to our post-war actions), then it behooves him to take the time to read the whole report (all horrors 80 pages of it). Launching a war because his advisors tailored a report that he did not read to support the conclusion that he had issued to them does not strike me as a legitimate action for the leader of the world’s most powerful nation. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/69 "2003-07-19T03:53:54Z")
**tomndebb** said: > [@](#): > > I do not accuse Bush of doing this for oil or to make Haliburton rich(er). I think this was done for the very simple reason that Bush had already proclaimed it the “right thing to do” during his campaign for the presidency, long before the WTC/Pentagon attack, and he had made it clear to the executives of the various intelligence groups just exactly what they were supposed to find. Do you have evidence that: 1. Bush decided to go after Iraq before the election, 2. He made that intention known to the intelligence community, or 3. That they manufactured any evidence. This is great debates. I’d like cites, please. Because as I recall, before the election Bush was not interested in ‘nation building’, and was more of an isolationist than an imperialist. I saw absolutely no evidence of the stuff you’re claiming. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/70 "2003-07-19T03:54:25Z")
**tomndeb** has the patience of a saint, and the writing ability of a God. **Sam Stone**. Again, I am losing faith in you. You were the one conservative on these boards that _appeared_ to see that the entire Iraq invasion was unjustified by the evidence. But you backslid. > [@](#): > > Samclem: Did you miss the part in the last message where I said that the report wasn’t all roses for Bush, and called into question some of his claims? Nope! I saw that. That was your equivalent of a **december** post. Very disappointing. But then you concluded > [@](#): > > But by and large, it does make a compelling case for Iraq as a real threat to the security of the world. There is a case for war in there - or rather, there is a case for threatening war if Iraq didn’t change its ways. Iraq didn’t, so war resulted. Iraq was no threat to the US or the world. Maybe to the Kurds. There was no “case for war there.” How could Iraq “change their ways?” I don’t understand. What would you have had them change? ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/71 "2003-07-19T05:47:21Z")
For Sam the forgetful, here’s the Iraq relevant parts of the SOTU. > [@](#): > > Twelve years ago, Saddam Hussein faced the prospect of being the last casualty in a war he had started and lost. To spare himself, he agreed to disarm of all weapons of mass destruction. > > For the next 12 years, he systematically violated that agreement. He pursued chemical, biological and nuclear weapons even while inspectors were in his country. Nearly an outright lie, but in any case discredited. For 8 of those years inspectors roamed the Iraqi countryside finding and destroying his weapons. At the time they left in 1998, they were certain that 98% of his weapons had been destroyed and that no new weapon capabilities had been created while they where there. Some number of weapons were also destroyed by GW II which could have accounted for that remaining 2%, but the inspectors couldn’t confirm that. If Saddam did restart his weapons programs, he did so after 1998. But it turns out that he did not. Inspectors returned to Iraq in 2002 and found no evidence of banned weapons. They had unfettered access to the sites that US intelligence said contained revamped weapons programs, and found that the US intelligence was flat out wrong about these sites. > [@](#): > > Nothing to date has restrained him from his pursuit of these weapons: not economic sanctions, not isolation from the civilized world, not even cruise missile strikes on his military facilities. Well, something restrained him, because we now know he didn’t actually make any new banned weapons. > [@](#): > > Almost three months ago, the United Nations Security Council gave Saddam Hussein his final chance to disarm. He has shown instead utter contempt for the United Nations and for the opinion of the world. Discredited. Saddam in fact claimed that he HAD disarmed. And US forces now in Iraq have essentially verified that he was telling the truth. > [@](#): > > The 108 U.N. inspectors were sent to conduct–were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California. The job of the inspectors is to verify that Iraq’s regime is disarming. Rehtorical bullshit. It was US intelligence that sent the inspectors and a non-productive scavenger hunt. Saddam claimed to have no weapons, and this has subsequently proved to be true. > [@](#): > > It is up to Iraq to show exactly where it is hiding its banned weapons, lay those weapons out for the world to see and destroy them as directed. Nothing like this has happened. The United Nations concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax; enough doses to kill several million people. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Discredited by facts on the ground in Iraq. It turns out that they weren’t hiding weapons after all. Before GW II the inspectors could go where they pleased, they found nothing. Since the war, US forces could go where they pleased and question whoever they pleased. They have also found nothing. At this point, the British goverment has concluded that there is nothing to be found. > [@](#): > > The United Nations concluded that Saddam Hussein had materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin; enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure. He hasn’t accounted for that material. He’s given no evidence that he has destroyed it. Bullshit. They concluded that he could _possibly_ have these materials. But the evidence on the ground in Iraq is clearly that he didn’t. > [@](#): > > Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He’s not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them, despite Iraq’s recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. Once again, these are projections, not factual numbers. But in any case, all of these are volatile compounds, Even if they existed in 1991, the would have been just so much sludge by 1999. US forces haven’t even found the sludge in the months, and they’ve run out of places to search at this point. > [@](#): > > From three Iraqi defectors we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs. These are designed to produce germ warfare agents and can be moved from place to a place to evade inspectors. Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. Discredited, most likely this was a lie to begin with. But in any case the only trailers found were completely unsutable for making germs. They were designed to make hydrogen to fill weather ballons. It turns out that the British made them 😉 > [@](#): > > The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. Yep, right before the inspectors on the ground destroyed these programs. :rolleyes: This is a dishonst rhetorical device rather than an actual argument for invasion. > [@](#): > > The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. The famous not-quite-lie. Needless to say the CIA has already indicated that they didn’t believe this was true at the time, they even tried to convince the British, but the Brits stuck by their intelligence while refusing to divulge it. If this had said “The British government _thinks_” then it would have at least been a (deliberately misleading) true statement, but one can’t be said to have ‘learned’ a non-fact. So this is a lie, even on it’s own terms. > [@](#): > > Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Discredited. The tubes walls were too thick. The coating was wrong, and the tubes were too long for use in a centrifuge. The tubes were designed for, and in fact _used for_ conventional artillery. > [@](#): > > Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide. :rolleyes: Brittiney Spears posters, and vacuum cleaners aparently. But NONE of the banned weapons that the Bush administration claimed he was hiding in Iraq have been found in Iraq. > [@](#): > > The dictator of Iraq is not disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving. Actually. It seems that he did disarm. And Bush is the one decieving. > [@](#): > > From intelligence sources, we know, for instance, that thousands of Iraqi security personnel are at work hiding documents and materials from the U.N. inspectors, sanitizing inspection sites and monitoring the inspectors themselves. Possibly true. Though no evidence has ever been given, and the smoking gun conversation of ‘sanitizing a site’ presented by Colin Powell to the UN turns out to have been an innocuous conversation edited to sound damning. > [@](#): > > Iraqi officials accompany the inspectors in order to intimidate witnesses. Iraq is blocking U-2 surveillance flights requested by the United Nations. Flat out lie. The Iraqis havn’t controlled their own skies since 1991. The simply lacked the ability to block U2 surveillance flights except with harsh language. > [@](#): > > Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction. But why? The only possible explanation, the only possible use he could have for those weapons, is to dominate, intimidate or attack. Well, since he didn’t have any WMD. It seems that Bush is, shall we say, making shit up here?? > [@](#): > > With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region. And if wishes were horses we would all be eating steak! > [@](#): > > And this Congress and the American people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda. Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his hidden weapons to terrorists, or help them develop their own. Discredited. Although it is clear that he gave money to the familes of palestenians who had committed suicide attacks, there is no evidence that he ever worked with Al Queda and some credible testimony from both Iraqi’s and Al Queda agents that he did not. > [@](#): > > Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. A truism and a smear all in one. Saddam was not associated with a shadowy terrorist network, or at least, not any one that targets the West. > [@](#): > > Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans, this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. Pure fear mongering. In fact, the 19 Hijackers did enormous damage without any vials, canisters or crates at all… ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/72 "2003-07-19T06:00:41Z")
As I thought. Your position is that since no actual weapons have been found yet, the western intelligence agency findings have all been discredited. My position is that the lack of evidence is not proof of anything, yet. Look: the U.S. is now being attacked with RPG’s and surface-to-air missiles. If weapons like that can still be hidden in large quantities, so can a few thousand gallons of chemical weapons. Feel free to hang yourself out on a limb by claiming that Bush’s case has been factually disproven by absence of positive evidence. Myself, I’ll wait and see. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/73 "2003-07-19T06:34:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\*… Look: the U.S. is now being attacked with RPG’s and surface-to-air missiles. If weapons like that can still be hidden in large quantities, so can a few thousand gallons of chemical weapons. > > … Myself, I’ll wait and see. \*\* First paragraph - Do you mean that the US is being attacked or that US troops in Iraq are being attacked by RPG’s from close range? Second paragraph - I doubt that you will, or have. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/74 "2003-07-19T09:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > My position is that the lack of evidence is not proof of anything, No it isn’t. You believe that there were (and are?0 WMD hidden in Iraq dispite having any evidence to back up that belief. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/75 "2003-07-19T10:08:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > > By what process are they supposed to determine that? Divination? > > The national intelligence estimate is the document that is supposed to guide policymakers. > \*\* No. It is supposed to give them information which they should include in their decision making, not more, not less. It does not trump law of any kind. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The Iraq dossier has key conclusions that Iraq was seeking to build nuclear weapons, and would have one within the decade. The intelligence community in the U.S. estimated that Iraq could rapidly manufacture a number of biological weapons, and very likely had large quantities of deadly chemical weapons like Vx. That document IS the determination of whether there is a threat or not - it contains 90 pages of supporting evidence which has not been declassified. > \*\* You are misrepresenting what it said. It spoke of possibilities. > [@](#): > > \*\* > But by and large, it does make a compelling case for Iraq as a real threat to the security of the world. There is a case for war in there - or rather, there is a case for _threatening_ war if Iraq didn’t change its ways. Iraq didn’t, so war resulted. \*\* False. Not changing its ways is not a case for war. Clear and PRESENT danger is. That the danger is not present is even confirmed by your quotes. > [@](#): > > \*\* > What I hope any rational reader would conclude, however, was that this was no conspiracy to fake up a reason to go to war in order to benefit someone’s rich oil buddies. Were some claims over-stated? Possibly. We don’t know for sure, because the British have their own intelligence, and it emphases different things. > \*\* It, like that of the US, knowingly emphasized information that was outdated. > [@](#): > > \*\* > And intelligence is not a precise science. All estimates are given with a confidence interval. I note that the reporters of the story above seem to misunderstand what that means - when a report says, “we have low confidence in this conclusion”, they seemed to think that means that someone believes the conclusion is wrong. In fact, ‘low confidence’ simply means that the accuracy of the judgement us subject to more unknowns. \*\* I hate to tell you this, but low confidence means that it is no basis to build a war on. It also means that the UN inspectors, who actually were on the ground in Iraq, probably have a better grasp of what’s going on- > [@](#): > > \*\* > My conclusions so far: Bush did not lie. Tony Blair did not lie. Both were absolutely convinced that they were doing the right thing for their countries. There were no ulterior motives - this was not done to gain re-election, or to help out friends. Both men believe they are acting in the interests of their countries. They believe this fervently. They should be given the benefit of the doubt. \*\* Your conclusion has already been disproven. > [@](#): > > \*\* > By shouting “Liar!”, and trying to make hay out of one sentence ina speech made long after the authorization for war was already given overwhelmingly by congress (and which was not mentioned again in subsequent arguments), and calling for impeachment, the Democrats are damaging themselves. They are going to wind up looking like they are playing politics with national security, and as being fundamentally unserious. > \*\* The only one trying to make hay out of one sentence is you and Bush. Fact is that almost the entirety of the presented evidence for WMDs was found to be fabricated. The alleged sanitization of a bunker complex was misrepresented. The alleged plane capable of distributing WMDs of which a satellite picture was shown was destroyed in the first inspection stint. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Especially after the Bush administration finishes making their case. I warned about overreaching in calling out Bush a couple of months ago - before you start levelling very serious charges, you’d better be sure they are going to stick. My feeling is that the Bush administration is going to wind up releasing a flurry of information at some point that is going to cut the Democrats off at the knees. \*\* My feeling is that to support Bush, one has to be completely and utterly scientifically illiterate and to consider assertions by Bush as holy writ will dismissing any actually solid data as propaganda. Let’s recap: Uranium deal: Never happened Bunker sanitization: Never happened WMD plane: Destroyed a decade ago Aluminium tubes: Totally unsuitable for what the Bush administration claimed they were for Bioweapons trailers: Hydrogen production and filling machinery. Intelligence data relayed to UN inspectors: Considered ‘garbage’ by those who had to do the footwork to verify it. Making hay out of one sentence in a speech? Hardly. More like: No piece of evidence has so far been presented that actually panned out. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 10:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/76 "2003-07-19T10:12:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > \*\* > My position is that the lack of evidence is not proof of anything, yet. Look: the U.S. is now being attacked with RPG’s and surface-to-air missiles. If weapons like that can still be hidden in large quantities, so can a few thousand gallons of chemical weapons. > > Feel free to hang yourself out on a limb by claiming that Bush’s case has been factually disproven by absence of positive evidence. Myself, I’ll wait and see. \*\* I see. So what you say is that in your eyes, when a murder happens, we should just round up the usual suspects, butcher them all, and then sort out if we actually had the right person among them? It is telling that you consider it perfectly ok to butcher people without the slightest hint of evidence. By the way: Being a wee bit more familiar with modern scientific detection methods than you is not ‘hanging out on a limb’. That RPGs can be hidden is not surprising. Everyone knows the country is awash in weapons, and that RPG propellant sniffers would find something practically everwhere. Chlostridium botulinum is a wee bit less ubiquitous, as is VX. ---
**Author:** ![MrThompson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MrThompson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrThompson)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/77 "2003-07-19T11:19:30Z")
> [@](#): > > Uranium deal: Never happened Prove it - maybe I haven’t been following the news very much lately, but my impression has been that this one is unsure either way. British Intelligence still holds to this claim,. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/78 "2003-07-19T11:33:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MrThompson \* > \*\*Prove it - maybe I haven’t been following the news very much lately, but my impression has been that this one is unsure either way. British Intelligence still holds to this claim,. \*\* Um, no, you prove that it happened. You use it as an argument to support war, you have to prove it’s for real. The British government might hold to this claim, but the document used to support it was known to be a forgery even before the war started. No one admits that he’s been had gladly. ---
**Author:** ![David\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/51bf81/32.png) [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/79 "2003-07-19T12:38:25Z")
[Moderator Hat: ON] dutchboy208 said: > [@](#): > > To put my thoughts bluntly, are you retarded ? > > Sorry if that sounds like a flame, but it isn’t, its an honest question. Wrong. It’s a flame. And it’s against the rules. So **don’t** do it again. Got it? * * * David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator [Moderator Hat: OFF] ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2003, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357/80 "2003-07-19T13:20:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sam Stone \* > My position is that the lack of evidence is not proof of anything, yet. Was Rummie your mentor? “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tony-blairs-speech-history-will-forgive/189357.md?page=5)