But there’s a premise here that strikes me as off-base. The premise is that after 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams and proven ties to terrorists could justify a pre-emptive war to depose Saddam. But the point of 9/11 was surely the opposite: that the burden of proof now lay on people denying such a threat, not those fearing it.
Andy filtered through Tha Shizzolater:
But there’s a premise here that strikes me as off-base, know what I’m sayin’? The premise is that after 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams ‘n proven ties terrorists could justify a pre-emptive war depose Saddam.” But da point of 9/11 wuz surely da opposite: that da burden of proof now lay on muthas denying such a threat, not those fearing that shiznit, know what I’m sayin’?
Andy filtered through the Dialecticizer, set on Redneck:
Th’ premise is thet af’er 9/11, only rock-solid evidence of illicit weapons prgrams an’ proven ties t’terro’ists c’d jestify a pre-emppive war t’depose Saddam, dawgone it. But th’ point of 9/11 was sho’ly th’ opposite: thet th’ burden of proof now lay on varmints denyin’ sech a threat, not them fearin’ it.
The Dialecticizer set on Elmer Fudd:
Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! But thewe’s a pwemise hewe that stwikes me as off-base. De pwemise is that aftew 9/11, onwy wock-sowid evidence of iwwicit weapons pwgwams and pwoven ties to tewwowists couwd justify a pwe-emptive waw to depose Saddam. But the point of 9/11 was suwewy the opposite: that the buwden of pwoof now way on peopwe denying such a thweat, not those feawing it.
On Swedish chef:
Zee premeese-a is thet effter 9/11, oonly ruck-suleed ifeedence-a ooff illeecit veepuns prgrems und prufee teees tu terrureests cuoold joosteeffy a pre-a-impteefe-a ver tu depuse-a Seddem. Boot zee pueent ooff 9/11 ves soorely zee ooppuseete-a: thet zee boordee ooff pruuff noo ley oon peuple-a denyeeng sooch a threet, nut thuse-a feereeng it.
If you’re going to read Andy, you might as well have fun doing it.