Is the "burden of proof" on Bush's critics ?

[kentuck]

This Administration has said that the "burden of proof" - about whether or not Iraq had WMDs - lies with the critics to proof there were no WMDs. How can one proof a negative?

Unfortunately, the press permitted them to get away with this faulty reasoning. They tell the people we are going to war because Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and nuclear materials. Then they send young people to die for their claims. And the "burden of proof" is on the critics to proof there were no WMDs? Beam us up Scotty!

[StClone]

1. Same as the old Boss

Prove Iraq don't have WMDs. God get a brain Freeps.

[FlashHarry]

2. Bullshit.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. Jesus Christ, this IS Bizarro world.

[BeatleBoot]

3. Proving a Negative

If I am sitting at the local bar and a man comes in yelling, "the aliens have landed, the aliens have landed", then its not up to me to prove that he is right or wrong.

The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim.

By saying that the burden of proof rests with those who didn't make the claim is, indeed, asking someone to prove a negative.

[blondeatlast]

4. Unfortunately, in this case it is up to us to prove it.

To me, it seems as plain as day: would you let your 6 year old get away with an excuse like that? "But mooo-ooom, Tooonyyy said it fiiii-rrrst . . ."

Still the media is pretty much in shrubs back pocket and we have a repug majority in both hoses of Congress (sorry to state the obvious here, I'm just thinking out lo . . .anyway, you know what I mean).

The pressure is on US to show the media and Congress that it is NOT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS to let this fade. This is gonna require real activism on our part, but in this day and age, that isn't so hard anymore. Just go to the net, click on your fave anti-shrub site, press a few buttons, and voila'--you've dropped a salvo right at your Congressman.

Ain't technology grand? This is from a woman who would chew off her arm before she would ring her representatives or a tv station--too painfully shy. But I can write . . .

[kentuck]

11. Yes, you can write...

:)

[bowens43]

5. The administration

is a collection of idiots, buffoons and fools. Anyone who believes that it's possible to prove a negative is a member of that collection.
Unfortunately, a large number of Americans don't see the fallacy in that logic.

[The Blue Flower]

6. It's personal now

I think the reason the media will stay on this one, no matter who the burden of proof is on, is that they lost colleagues and friends this time. The murders of journalists at the Palestine Hotel was not an accident, so it's now their fight, too.

[GumboYaYa]

7. Actually, we have proven that Iraq had no WMDs.

They haven't found any. Not one, nothing, zilch, nada........

What more proof do we need?

They need to prove to us that there was some legitimate basis for believing there were WMDs, when clearly none ever actually existed, and that we didn't go to war on a bunch of lies.

[BOSSHOG]

9. You got that right Gumbo

There are no WMD. And Bush lied during the SOTUA. Even the enemy has all but admitted that FACT. The only thing the liars are depending on is the lack of integrity of their base. Freepers will accept his lies for whatever spin the white house gins up. Wave a flag in my face today christian conservative citizen.

[Az]

10. Unfortunately

You cannot prove a negative. The only way to possibly prove that there are no WMDs in Iraq is to literally put the entire country through a sieve. We can raise the doubt of the existance of WMDs to a level enough to provide a reasonable doubt but proof is beyond the scope of logic in this case.

[GumboYaYa]

13. We aren't talking to a bunch of logicians here.

It is the American public we have to convince. They will accept the argument that there aren't any because we haven't found any. Nice simple easy response that they will buy.

Start responding to the Freepers with "you can't prove a negative and the burden is on the claimant" and they will get you bogged down in a battle over those issues.

Respond to them, there ain't none until you find some, and how can they answer that?

[Az]

15. The right will respond with

Its a big country. We are still looking. There are agents loyal to Saddam still hiding them.

Our best ally is time. The longer it takes the more discredited the claims of WMDs become. However expect the BFEE to never admit there are no WMDs simply because logic allows them the verbal escape.

[GumboYaYa]

16. Your exactly right.

But time is our friend. We have plenty of time nefore the next election. There excuses are already running thin. How do you think that line will sound in two or three months?

[blondeatlast]

17. Excellent points all.

My point exactly is that we have to "prove" SOMETHING to the American people. I'm a BachSci, I know that a negative can't be proven.

It really isn't about the fact that the WMDs don't exist. What it is about is that a majority of Americans (just read that as voters, even if they aren't) think the invasion was justified. If the invasion was not jsutified by WMD, than by Saddam's (admittedly) tyrannical, torturing regime--on that point they aaalllmmmooosssttt had me--I have worked with people who fled Iraq.

[Az]

8. Burden of proof is on the claimant

The BFEE made its claim and provided their evidence. We refute the evidence and claim it to be fraudulent. Thus the burden now resides on our shoulders.

In a logical process as long as the claimant provides evidence to support their claim it becomes the job of the opposition to refute the evidence. This is often violated in debates by a claimant making a claim and providing no evidence to support it. Relying on emotional appeal or other logical fallacies they will try to scare the opposition away. In this case though they have provided evidence. It may well be bad evidence but we gotta show that.

[mojogeorgo]

12. We can't let them off this easy

I am seeing a lot of cynical resignation about this every time I bring it up. I'm cynical too, but we *can't* let Bush and Company off the hook. We need to keep making noise, to the point that the media can't ignore us.

http://democrats.org/truth
http://votetoimpeach.org
http://protest.bmgbiz.net

[xchrom]

14. the burden of proof lies w/ bushco

but lets not forget -- there is s a possiblity, smaller every day, that there were wmd's. and it's possible that as a result of this murderous adventure of our mighty leaders they have been scattered. and we don't know who has them.
an even worse scenario -- the grown-ups never really knew what they were doing and not just impeachable offences have happened -- possibly jailable ones. and i would love to see various charaters from bushco in handcuffs.