Robert K. Dornen, U.S. Congressman. 1995
"David Bromage" wrote in message
.. .
Michael Williamson wrote:
On the subject of WMDs, however, it has been noted
that Iraq had 12 years of opportunity to prove that it had dismantled
its programs (as required by the ceasefire agreements), but many of
those same programs came to light in spite of, rather than due to,
the regime's actions in regard to inspections. The government of
Iraq declined all of their opportunities to do so, and eventually
paid the price.

In any civilised proceedings the onus of proof is (or should be) on the
plaintif.

Cheers
David

Generally agreeded.
However in this case there is undisputable proof he had WMD and had in fact
used them.
At this point the burdin of proof shifted. The plantif needed to show no
longer had them.


A note weather he had WMD wasn't debated or considered an item of contention
by any country.
The debate was on the methiod or riding him of them.

Jim