I can reject the concept of 'provisionally true' because I have no problem living with uncertainty.
Post #59: "there has been ample reason from early 2003 to the present to conclude that it was unlikely Iraq had WMDs." Unlikely (your assertion) seems pretty darn contradictory of Known for a fact (the truth).
You caught me oversimplifying. I should have written "tactically significant stocks of WMDs".
Lest it pass by unnoticed I think the discrepancy between what the US State Department attributes to the UN, and what the UN says for itself indicates deliberate deception as does the misleading marginal summary statement.
The existence of a stockpile of Iraqi anthrax is a separate fact from the accounting for that stockpile.
IF we know for a fact that there are 8,500 liters of Iraqi anthrax somewhere, and Iraq has not accounted for it then we know there is an unaccounted for stockpile of Iraqi anthrax. This implies that it is a fact that the anthrax exists though the accounting is absent.
but
IF we now for a fact only that Iraq declared it produced 8,500 liters of anthrax and has not adequately accounted for it then we know there may be an unaccounted for stockpile of Iraqi anthrax.
The unsubtle difference is the difference between is which implies certainty and may be which does not.
We do not know that there is a stockpile, we know that the accounting is inadequate to rule it out, and it would be unwise to trust Iraq on any such issues.
At this point I think I have already let you know everything I care to see you criticize.
Take care.
-- FF
I can reject the concept of 'provisionally true' because I have no problem living with uncertainty. Then you will have no problem acknowledging that the claims here are unopposed by any contrary evidence, even though they haven't been "proven". We simply have uncertainty about this topic and that is (or, should be) ok with you, it's not a reason to go off accusing this man of lying half-cocked with no evidence.
You caught me oversimplifying. I should have written "tactically significant stocks of WMDs".
I see but I don't know why you would have written that either. Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD, nor was that even the issue under consideration at that point of our exchange. To imply that Iraq needed to have "tactically significant stocks of" WMD before [something-or-other] is to move the goalposts; to imply that according to prewar claims [something-or-other] hinged on Iraq's possesion of T.S.S.O.WMD is a straw-man.
We do not know that there is a stockpile, we know that the accounting is inadequate to rule it out, and it would be unwise to trust Iraq on any such issues.
Glad we agree.
Our only significant disagreement is about whether one should disbelieve EC#2's claims. I don't, you do. But as long as you understand there's a difference between Not Disbelieving (=my position) and Believing (=not my position), we're indeed probably done here.
Best,