Killing Powell's argument
Powell's 'killer argument' ... Powell said that evidence had already been found. Speaking to CNN, the secretary noted that he had shown February 5 in his speech to the U.N. Security Council a drawing of vans purported to be biological weapons labs "and voila, the vans showed up a few months later." "Now, people are debating whether or not these vans truly are biological vans," Powell said. "Sure they are. What other purpose are there?" Powell then offered a "killer argument" supporting his contention that the vans "are exactly what I said they were." "I can assure you that if those biological vans were not biological vans, when I said they were, on February 5, on February 6 Iraq would have hauled those vans out, put them in front of the press conference, gave them to the UNMOVIC inspectors to try to drive a stake in the heart of my presentation," he said. "They did not."
So, let me see. Powell's counter argument is that Saddam could have proven that the evidence he presented was false by just bringing out the vans and showing the world that they weren't for Bio-Chem weapon production. He didn't, therefore that is what they were for. Of course, Bush could prove that he wasn't a liar if he would just come out and reveal the intelligence that has him so convinced he was right. But he's not doing that, therefore, by the new Powell Doctrine, he must really have been lying. Boy, that was simple wasn't it?