> or not, he's all but admitting he would of believed the
> current intel, just like Bush did.
> Now, you can make perfectly valid arguments that maybe
> he'd of done things differently after that, but it kind of
> takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Bush
> should of been wary of the intel....it seems to have
> fooled JK too.
I don't think it invalidates the argument at all...
There's something to be said for thinking or believing that something
is true based on lousy evidence and then using the lousy evidence you
have as a starting point and going out and getting more evidence
that's not lousy.
Am I wrong? Is this not what cops are supposed to do all the time?
I.e. person x is our prime suspect but we don't have enough evidence,
lets go get some more...
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
