Reply #5: It's realy a question of shifting the burden of proof. [View All]

[GumboYaYa]

In logic there is no rule that you can not prove a negative; every negative can be asserted as a positive. For example, Iraq does not have WMDs can be asserted as there are no WMDs in Iraq. The latter can certainly be proven if one has complete access to Iraq.

By asserting things in a negative, you effectively shift the burden of proof to the other party. It's a classic trick of atheists. They say there is no God, now prove that there is one. That's the same thing Bush was doing in Iraq.

Bush had to rush to war because Iraq was about to prove they had no WMDs by giving the inspectors complete access. That is why we could not wait the thirty days the rest of the world requested before we invaded.