Someone brought up on my of my articles today about the fact I was an economist (Thanks Demosthenes Locke), and indeed I am, by education.  (I actually used it in my first job before switching careers).  In economics, we have something called Type I and Type II errors.

Put simply, Type I errors are ones of over cautiousness and Type II errors are errors of inattentiveness.

I was reminded of this today by Listening to Walter E. Williams (dont forget the E).  He was trying to explain to a caller about Iraq.  Now we all know that while Saddam HAD WMDs (and used them against the Kurds and in GWI), he got rid of them before GWII.  But before GWII, we did not know he had gotten rid of them, and no longer had them.

So for all the ones railing on WMDs (and are honest enough not to say that Bush Lied, but just blew a call), I ask you this question, thanks to Walter E. Williams.

What is Worse?  Assuming that Saddam had no WMDs and he does and uses them? Or

Assuming that Saddam Has WMDS and will use them, but he does not have them?

I think you can see the magnitude of the difference between Type I and Type II errors.  Which error would YOU want to make?