This morning Iwas listening to 'Today' in my very half awake state, and was I right in thinking that there's to be some sort of change in the way the proof has to be come up with about the alleged weapons in Iraq?
Is it now that they want Saddam to prove he got rid of them?
Shouldn't it be to prove they are / aren't there now?
I know he's a dictator and all, but don't standard rules about 'innocent until proven guilty' apply? How can he prove a negative, haven't we got to prove the positive?
I suppose this is all part of the plan to justify blowing the country apart.
|