Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)
"It is strange that some seem to want to put the burden of proof on us," [Defense Secretary] Rumsfeld said in testimony prepared for appearances before the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. "The burden of proof ought to be on him, to prove he has disarmed, to prove he no longer poses a threat to peace and security."
Oh I don't know maybe it has something to do with the fact that it is Rummy and friends who want to go to war.
Later in the article:
"I suspect that, in retrospect, most of those investigating 9/11 would have supported preventive action to pre-empt that threat if it had been possible to see it coming," Rumsfeld said.
Now, Rumsfeld contended, the United States has more information on Iraq's capabilities and proclivities than was available before Sept. 11, even in retrospect.
Compare the scraps of information the government had on Iraq before Sept. 11 to the volumes it has today, factor in America's demonstrated vulnerability after Sept. 11 and, "the case the president made should be clear," Rumsfeld said in prepared testimony for a Sept. 18 House hearing.
Saddam's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, his previous use of those weapons, his record of aggression and his consistent hostility toward the United States, Rumsfeld said, should be enough to justify pre-emptive military action without the United States providing further evidence.
None of this "evidence" indicates that Iraq is a threat but I suppose such logical analysis is out of place in this day and age. posted by micah holmquist at 9/20/2002 11:00:00 PM
