Cheney:"I repeat that we never had the burden of proof; Saddam Hussein did

I wonder how a parent of a serving soldier would react to this comment?

is anybody out there believing this ol' crap?

Is that why you bypassed the CIA?

death because he can't prove he doesn't have something he doesn't have? Even if there were a shred of legitimacy to that argument, it would still be evil.

This is their "might makes right" attitude on steroids - global megalomania that dwarfs all reason and ethics. According to the Dick-tater, weapons inspections were mere courtesies - and, despite claims by the Busholinis of absolute certitude regarding the existence of WMD, the failure of weapons inspectors to verify a single thing 'known by everyone,' the victims bore the burden of proving a negative. Every logician and ethicist in the world must be screaming in agony.

The Third Reich was a collection of 'fair and balanced' people compared to the awesome scope of the Dick-tater's blame-shifting.

And be upset the say our demoratic leaders have acted.



We need to be better not just try and make them look bad, but step up and be better.

You sound a bit sympathetic to the right wing position...

Hope you enjoyed your stay. Watch your step as you exit.

:thumbsup:

Please try again.

When Cheney utters these ludicrous statements, it's not the Dems who make him look bad.

He must be going 'phew' as he wipes his weary brow!!! Weary from the burden he has been shouldering! All this time he (and I guess everyone except Dick and the Freepers (sounds like a fifties band) thought the 'burden of proof always rested with the Prosecution'.

Let's get this bombshell news to Fitz! No need for him to carry that burden of proof anymore. The Big Dick has spoken!! All Fitz needs to do now is bring on those indictments!!

We know who they are and now ~ drumroll please!!! The Big Dick says 'We don't need no Proof'!! The Burden will be on Cheney, Libby, Bush, Wolfy, Rumsfeld, Hadley, Rice, Ledeen, Feith, and the rest of the gang.

I repeat, Dick. When your indictment comes down, remember 'We, the people, never had that old Burden of Proof!! YOU prove you didn't lie to the people of the US, or else, well, you know how it works, after all you made the rules: :rofl:

Exactly how do you prove a negative? How do you prove you DON'T have something?

Mr. Cheney, have you ever been to Saskatoon? No? Can you PROVE that?

On the other hand, it can CERTAINLY be proven whether the intel leading up to the invasion of Iraq was manipulated, exaggerated, or completely fabricated. Let's see every email, every letter, every memo, the minutes of every meeting -- then we'll be able to know who is now 'rewriting history'

It's your turn, Cheney. Show 'em, or fold 'em.

and BUSH kicked them out. So, even though Cheney claims the burden of proof was on the accused :eyes: Saddam did all he could to prove he was being truthful in saying he had no WMD's. I suppose I'm a "Saddam defender" now for telling the truth about the situation?

Here's the burden of proof when it comes to going to war. You have to be right. Period. There is no, well we were wrong, but we acted reasonably considering what we knew at the time. No good enough. You have to be right.

And you have to win, which we are not doing.

War, absolutely the last resort. All other options were exhausted. Funny, though, how he brought up that thing about the intelligence being wrong about Saddam's weapons development in 1990... kind of like they were fighting the last war and had already jumped to a conclusion.

How do you prove the non-existence of something? The burden of proof is on the one who believes something exists, not the one claiming the opposite.

It's exactly like making an atheist prove the non-existence of God, instead of making the theist prove the existence.

But then what should we expect?

Dicky boy had to prove they had them. One cannot prove a negative. Like in a court, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. They must prove that the defendant did something. The burden of proof is not on the defendant, because they cannot prove that he did not do something.

Dicky boy is just playing to his ignorant base.

Imagine if trials were run like this. Sorry, bub, we think you're guilty and you have to PROVE you're innocent. Oh, you say you don't have a cache of weapons on your house. Just because we haven't found them yet doesn't mean you're off the hook. No, we don't have to prove that you do, we can just say so, and bomb your home.

Hey, Cheney! I say that you are a mass-murdering, lying war profiteer!

The burden of proof is on you! Prove to me that you aren't!

They were just a little too close to ruining your war hard on , weren't they? You had to kick them out before they could finish their job, didn't you, or your WMD ruse would be exposed, wouldn't it?

Fucking lying sack of shit.

Remember that ... yeeeeeeeeah. It's all coming back now, isn't it?

:eyes:

right before we invaded.

Does any else remember this?

they claimed pages were missing or something. Saddam must have stolen that trick from bushco, or maybe Dick and Co. just made that up. Hard to tell. Remember how we were destroying missiles that could barely reach Kuwait and model airplanes too? My God, the media was trying to make us worry about a 12 foot wide model airplane spraying nerve gas over Ohio. It was absolutely ridiculous. I hope no one will ever forget that bushco was the one who kicked out the inspectors - not Saddam.

By god, we don't got no burden of proof. Bunch of fucking tree hugging liberals and there insistence on proof. Our great veep shore put them in thaare place.

for well over a year and the "prove a negative" has come up many a time.

We absolutely have the burden of proof before we take action like invading another country.

He's demanding that SH prove a negative in order to avoid being invaded. You can't do that.

for this war. impeachment is the only option.

you accuse him of hiding drugs in his home, he lets you send in teams of people to find them, they don't, he says they can come back. You say 'no need for them to go back, prove to us you don't have them and if you don't we're going to kill you, and if we kill your neighbors, well too bad, the burden of proof was on you and we have no responsibility for anything we do. Get it? Every mistake we make is somebody else's fault and too bad about all those dead people'

No, I don't think any sane person will buy his or Rummy's (he's blaming the 'debate that's going at home' for the violence in Iraq) trying to point the finger away from themselves.

This is YOUR war, boys, try to stand up like grown men and take responsibility for it. And let this be a lesson to others who think that lying to the American is ever justified (I know, Michael Ledeen says it is because Machievelli said so) especially about war.

I hope these criminals and their actions will be held up as an example of what not to do when you are an employee of the American people. And I hope their punishment fits the crimes they are guilty of. They look like such fools now, scrambling to try to blame others, anyone, because they have been caught in the lies ~

analogy. Have you thought about making it the start of a separate thread? I'd hate for other posters to miss or overlook this.

but if anyone else wants to, it's fine with me. I just feel dazed at how they keep coming up with more and more BS ~ so I try to apply their logic to how the real world works, and it just doesn't ~ :-)

I'm stealing your analogy. :D

I'm going to use this on my brother-in-law and watch his head explode. That's the best analogy for this situation that I've read.

The defendants now have the burden of proof? Nice.

That just doesn't make any damned sense, guilty until proven innocent.

:wtf:

You can try.....

When you're trying to persuade the American public that we should go to war, you ALWAYS have the burden of proof that the war is necessary.

It's YOUR responsibility to ensure that it is. And your excuses don't look too good when stories are breaking left and right about press propaganda propagated by you and the defense department to support the war in Iraq on faulty evidence.

Please tell the truth, Dick. You support going to war against any country that will earn $$$ for you and your cronies at Halliburton. I'm afraid your excuses merely look like the spouting of a convicted criminal when interviewed in jail - "but, but, I DIDN'T kill that guy - even though they found the knife in my hand as I committed the crime, my DNA all over the victim, and me standing over the body." What criminal ever admits he's actually guilty?

Dick - you are a LOSER!

you moronic, lying, scum sucking SOB. It was bad enough when I see a headline in USA Today calling torture a "unique method, but perfectly legal" (no I do not know what dickhead said it, I could not stomach reading it)

See what they think of our own constitution? Cheney wipes his ASS with it. We should all send him some Constitution TP.

Isn't it usually the burden of the accuser??

Isn't it usually that the burden of proff falls on the prosecution...the plaintiff....and NOT the defendant?

Hell, that's the way it always worked when I went to court.

I took a former employer to court once, over a charge of employment discrimination...and the burden of proff was SQUARELY on my shoulders....not theirs!

It was not their burden to prove their innocence, it was MY BURDEN to prove their guilt.

After five years (acting as my own attorney the entire time) I finally DID manage to get two seperate rulings in my favor, and then settled out of court, when the company threatened to appeal yet again.

I'd had enough by that time, and the settlement they offered was close enough to what I was actually seeking anyway, so I finally said the hell with it.

BUT...may I point out that, during the entire process...as the accuser, the burden of proof was always on ME.

Since when did the burden of proof fall upon the accused?

And just how the fuck is anyone supposed to prove the NON-EXISTENCE of anything? You can't!

You can prove the existence, merely by finding said object, and holding it up for everyone to see. But how do you prove non-existence? Documents can be forged and altered, thus making it appear a certain thing was destroyed, when in fact, it was not.

And that is part and parcel of what Cheney & Co accused Saddam of. He (Saddam) attempted to provide proof, and that proof was rejected, out of hand, by the warhawks who were just itching to get into Iraq. Not that Saddam was a good guy (he wasn't) Not that the world isn't better off without Saddam (it is) but, for Christ's sake - just WHEN did the burden of proof shift from the accuser to the accused?

That is against everything this country stood for, and was foundeed upon!

What was that he said? Something like the people who say Saddam doesn't have WMDs have to prove it?

had UN weapon inspectors in the country finding jack!!!!!!! We had the inspectors inside the country.

Two generations of WMD inspectors couldn't find even a trace of anything.

Years after the invasion, we still can't find a trace of WMD.

Negative. Proof. There you have it Cheney. Now what.

It's so bad in Iraq that they can't "move on" and are stuck in this endless loop of explanations.

one primary rule of logic (and the reason for our belief that a person is "innocent until proven guilty") --- you cannot prove a negative.

:banghead:

I say Sabra (just to use the OP as my guinea pig :) ) has a tiger in his backyard!

Sabra, you want to tell me you don't? Then prove it! If I don't see a tiger, I'll just assume you've cleverly hidden the tiger before my arrival. So there!

Hussein to prove it?

"Tonight! We will open Saddam's Vault--LIVE!!!"

Of course he was talking about the Plame Leak....but hey...interesting how suddenly he found that lesson from logic 101 when it helps to save his cookies.

Maybe he can share that little bit of enlightenment with Cheney.

I was looking for the transcript. He was talking about Mohammed Atta. It also made not sense. He wasn't really talking about proving a negative.

Even though the phrase did not apply to what he was talking about.

WALLACE: Finally, I want to ask you about something, and I must say, when I...

RUMSFELD: This is a typical Washington game, isn't it? You go around to everybody and say what about you, what about you, what about you. He's really caused a stir. I was in Adelaide, Australia and I read something about this and was amused by it all.

WALLACE: Well, so it's not just Washington. But let me ask you one last thing. And I have to say, a lot of people wanted me to ask you about this. Able Danger, an intelligence unit in the Pentagon — did they or did they not identify Mohammed Atta and some of the other 9/11 hijackers in the year 2000?

RUMSFELD: There are people that said they did. The year 2000 or earlier? I don't remember when it was.

WALLACE: No, the year 2000.

RUMSFELD: Was it? I wasn't in government at the time, obviously.

WALLACE: Right.

RUMSFELD: But there are some people who say that that's the case. There are other people involved who say it isn't. And the people in the Pentagon, I'm told, have spent just enormous numbers of hours digging into everything they can find and giving it to the appropriate committees of the Congress, and they have not been able to validate it.

WALLACE: I don't understand why it's so complicated. I mean, people are — I mean, it's a fact. Why wouldn't you, as the secretary of defense, your people underneath you, be able to find out?

RUMSFELD: They've looked and they — you can't prove a negative. They've looked and looked and looked and looked and found everything they could find. Cannot find validation of that, which doesn't mean it didn't happen.

You say you don't understand why it can't be done. But you couldn't do it either. You can't prove a negative. All you can say is we've looked and looked and looked. We can't say it didn't happen, but we also don't have evidence that it did.

it was OUR government that couldn't wait for a conclusive answer

Idiot.

while wearing her underwear, riding boots
and a Waffen SS field commander's hat.

Prove it to be untrue.

in Iraq. We STOPPED them from doing their jobs because no WMDs would be found. 2 1/2 years later we still CANNOT FIND WMDs in Iraq. Looks like Saddam was telling the truth, his proof was the UN. To bad we invaded Iraq and scared off weapons inspectors. It appears the burden of proof will have to wait til after we pillage Iraq and all it's natural resources.

And to Dick I say, go fuck youself!

meet the burden of proof we set for them?

The one who uses violence first in a situation always has the burden of proof that the violence was justified. If, on the street, you think a man has a gun and pull your own pistol and shoot him claiming self-defense, if he turns out not to have had so much as a spoon in his pocket you will be going to jail....

Prove there are no blue dragons living in Manhattan. PROVE IT!!!

Aside from the fact that the Dick is a uhm...dick, doesn't it really frost 'ya that someone of such limited intellectual capacity is running our government??

Is this the best we can do? He's a lying pos OR he couldn't pass Logic 101. Probably both. :eyes:

:rofl: