> --- Brian Siano <siano at mail.med.upenn.edu> wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2003 21:26:49 -0400 (EDT), Michael
>> Pollak
>> <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The only people
>> who could take this stance with anything like
>> evidence were the actual
>> weapons inspectors-- and even then, they had a whole
>> country to search.
>> Given what was known then, believing that WMDs were
>> fantasy would have been
>> pretty far-fetched. So, it was a bit disingenuous to
>> fault the media for
>> not suspecting that it was "all made up to begin
>> with."
>>
>>
>
> You clearly share the bias of the media, that anything
> the govt says is to be prima facie believed,
> disbelieved only if refuted by clear and convincing
> evidence. and the burden of proof si on the skeptic.
> Seems to that that an honest and res[onsible media,a
> nd a sane citizen, would exactly reverse the burden of
> proof.
Well, even Noam Chomsky also said, repeatedly, that WMDs were probably going to be found. I think it has surprised everyone that nothing has turned up. That certainly is quite amazing.
As for the inspectors, they were careful to maintain that non-evidence was not equal to existence, but at the same time hid that under piles of verbiage so as to pressure the Iraqis. They were not foreign to political machination, quite apart from any influence the US administration might have sought to exert.
More broadly, there is the question of whether WMDs would have justified war anyway. That's somewhat lost track of in this debate, and this gives certain people an air of insincerity. It's a bit rich to hope for months that there will be WMDs, and then feign surprise at having been sold the lie.
Thiago Oppermann