That's the name of a drill we use to sanity check ideas. It's probably at the root of my frustration over a lot of what's being discussed with regards to Iraq.
What would you have to believe to believe that the Bush Administration faked WMD evidence in order to invade Iraq? In other words, what would you have to believe in order to believe that the Administration, _knowing that Iraq had no WMDs_, invaded Iraq anyways for other reasons? You would have to believe that they invaded Iraq knowing that, after the country was defeated, it would be revealed that there was nothing there. You would have to believe either that every other government in the world was complicit in the deception (despite, in many cases, opposing the war) _or_ that the Administration was somehow able to trick every other government in the world. You would have to believe that after expelling the inspectors in 1998 Saddam Hussein _chose_ to destroy the WMD that he already had, and then chose not to tell anyone, maintaining the sanctions on his own country. You would further have to believe that, after expelling the inspectors, Saddam made no efforts not to reconstitute them, despite his decades-long attempts to acquire them, and his demonstrated willingness to use them. That's what you _have_ to believe. If you don't believe any one of those four things, then you logically cannot believe that Iraq had no WMD and the Bush Administration faked the evidence of it in order to go to war with Iraq. If you _do_ believe those four things, then I'm not sure that rational debate is possible, and so I'm wasting my time. If you _don't_, then how can you believe that the Administration lied its way to the war? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
