Quote:
Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe he had reason to believe there weren't. He didn't particularly care. He had made up his mind and he refused to discuss or consider any input that contradicted his chosen course.
I'm not sure whether he is so deluded that he was actually incapable of processing the negative information or he is so arrogant that he believes he can simply ignore it.
|
2. He was given enough information with which a reasonable person would conclude that no weapons existed. There was probably more evidence that North Korea had weapons than Iraq.
He certainly did not have any reliable information that 9/11 and Saddam were linked.
Bilmore, I don't think he lied. I think he made a horrible decision based on flimsy data. He was grossly negligent. This isn't a case in which the prosecution used the information that bests supported its argument at trial. This is a case in which the prosecution completely skipped the grand jury (b/c there wasn't enough evidence to show probable cause) and prevented the defense from offering any argument whatsoever. Why does Bush hate due process? Who started this stupid trial analogy?
