Footnote to that footnote

Cheney also engaged in a little - what shall we call it, how about rambunctious logic? - in that speech. He

shrugged off the failure to find weapons of mass destruction. "We never had the burden of proof," he said, adding that it had been up to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to prove to the world that he didn't have such weapons.

So it was up to Saddam Hussein to prove a negative. Even after the inspectors found nothing, he had to prove a negative. Even after the inspectors were prepared to regard any discrepancies as the result of sloppy bookkeeping, not deception, he had to prove a negative. We could make charges, but had no obligation to back them up because they were based on "intelligence" from people we knew to be liars. Even though to this day the White House still will not say that Saddam had no such weapons in the runup to the war (they will only acknowledge the "failure to find them," which is not the same thing), he had to prove a negative.

"Hello. I'm from the IRS. We say you had $500,000 in undeclared income last year and owe beaucoup bucks in taxes. Prove that you didn't or we'll take your house, seize your bank account, and garnish your wages. Well? We're waiting."

The burden of proof. What a wonderful thing to not have.