Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Wrong. You can analyze a piece of evidence at any time and ascertain whether or not it can be relied upon at that time to prove a particular fact. For example, in a fraud case, I may have some evidence of intent to deceive (such as a witness' testimony that he heard the defendant admit intention to deceive the plaintiff). I can ascertain the value (or "probative weight") of that evidence by looking at the credibility of the witness (criminal record, occupation, motivation to tell the truth, etc.) and at corroborating testimony from other witnesses, and at contradictory evidence (i.e. a document proving that the witness was on a business trip on the day he claimed to have heard the defendant's admission). I look at the facts and circumstances and determine whether a reasonable jury would believe the evidence is true. It's called weighing the evidence. It's simple. People do this all day long, in all walks of life. You do it when you decide whether to take a job offer, whether to buy a particular car, or whether your spouse is cheating on you.

Bush could have done the same thing. All he needed to do was weigh the evidence. For example, take the evidence that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. If the only source for that "evidence" is that somebody said something to somebody else, and there is no corroboration, then the only intelligent thing to do is to discount that evidence. Bush should have pushed it aside as too unreliable to support a rational decision.

All the known evidence was weighed; it told Bush as well as the Senators and the House members that voted for the invasion precisely what they needed to do in regard to the circumstances, or mass of overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

Quick question: How is it that in US law a suspect can be convicted "in absentia". How is it that circumstantial evidence has sealed cases, in light of physical evidence?

I would ask you to read this and try running the above by me again after you've done so:

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
So you're wrong, JaTo. The CIA (and Bush) DID KNOW "back then" that the WMD evidence was weak. They had full access to all the supporting background info on all the evidence, and they knew it was too thin. They were just so determined to carry out the hit on Saddam that they didn't care.

The above report says you're full of it, along with intelligence around the globe at the time.


Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I thought you agreed that the absence of evidence does not support a decision to go to war.

If we were dealing with the island of Tahiti, then yes. Dealing with Hussein and Iraq, AND for a decade on the subject?

I see that common sense and reasoning have both "slipped the moorings" and have taken another pleasure cruise...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Only the PRESENCE of SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE supports a decision to go to war. Saddam's failure to account for the VX proves only that he failed to account for it.

...which the stated penalty by the US and the UN was "severe consequences". By this, the Security Council didn't mean they were going to put on their "really pissed faces" instead of their "aggrivated faces"; it was commonly known to mean INVASION.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It doesn't prove that he still had it, or that he was going to somehow use it against America.



And people actually wonder why I don't want two trial lawyers anywhere NEAR the Oval Office?

The fact that he hid it, moved it of failed to account for TONS (I'm not talking a few ziplock bags; I'm talking tens of THOUSANDS OF POUNDS of some of the most dangerous crap this planet has ever seen!) of weaponized toxins has been addressed NUMEROUS times; if you have a problem with the UN 1441, I strongly suggest you talk to the Security Council to get it rewritten to reflect your legal interpretations...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
A UN resolution is a paper with words on it. It may state reasons for going to war, and it may even authorize the UN to go to war, but it is NEVER sufficient to support a US decision to go to war without the UN's approval.

I somewhat respect the UN's ability to do certain things, but the ONE thing I will never entrust to a multi-national body is US security and dictating to us what is and is NOT a threat.

The fact that France, Germany and quite possibly Russia backing out of military action at the 11th hour for purely political and financial reasons won't even elicit a response from you , will it?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Look at your blatant contradiction: one the one hand, you (and Bush) say the UN resolution was a sufficient basis for the US invasion, even though the UN flat-out refused to authorize the US to invade.

The heart of the contradiction lies in the motives of France and Germany.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You can't cloak yourself in the UN resolution to justify Bush's war (a tacit acknowledgment of the UN's authority in the matter) without admitting that the very same UN refused to support the US invasion. You can't use the UN resolutions you like and disregard the ones you don't, if you are trying to use UN resolutions as a justification for Bush's war.

If Iraq is buying UN Security Council votes and certain council members back out at the last minute for purely self-serving political and financial reasons, then why the Hell not?

I don't see the apellate courts tossing case law out on it's ear when a corrupt judge makes a call that serves his or her own interest? Why should I toss UN mandate that was agreed to by a body that was largely interested in doing the right thing, instead of a small few that decided to cater to financial and political whims and lean on everybody else to screw the entire process up?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Everyone agrees there were legitimate security concerns. But you seem to be mischaracterizing the UN resolution 1441 as some kind of blanket authorization to the US military, which the UN has explicitly said it was not.

I'm not calling it a blanket authorization, I'm calling it what it really served as and what it was universally recognized as: a final ultimatum to the Iraqi regime.

The conditions set forth in it were not met, key council members deserted their stated stance for selfish political and financial reasons and after repeated demands past UN 1441, we finally acted.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
And you seem to be characterizing the UN resolution as some like of light switch, which once flipped, required a war to follow.

Absolutely not; if Hussein had lived up to it (or countless other resolutions that required his FULL cooperation), then there would have been NO basis to invade Iraq.

It wasn't just UN 1441 that solely led to the invasion. It was a decade of deceit, lies and compromised resolutions that so utterly destroyed any trust that the international community and the US could have with Iraq that in the end, invasion was the only viable alternative.

Hussein was given so many chances to come clean and totally "open the kimono" it was absurd. He chose another path entirely.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I think you are confusing the UN's legislative act (authorization of use of force) with the very separate executive act (UN deciding to actually go to war). The UN collectively decided that the threat was not imminent enough to justify war yet.

By collective, I guess you mean those that either abstained or sided with France and Germany; not the 30+ countries that sided with the US on this, right?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
The UN was right, wasn't it?

That is the crux of it all:

The UN, through YEARS of bungling, half-measures, a corrupt sanctions program held over Iraq, multiple screwups in WMD searches (with some of the biggest finds delivered by CIA-interrogated defectors pointing their compass in the right direction), letting Hussein dictate the terms of those searches (not going into palaces, only interrogating scientists under the presense of his staff, etc.), bribes and everything else...

...they somehow managed to stumble into what seems to be the ultimate correct answer on the question of Iraqi WMD.

Like the math teachers I had, I'm interested in the answer, but I'm also interested in how the answer was obtained. If someone got it by pure serendipity (akin to throwing darts while blindfolded), then I don't put much faith in their methods.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
No, they did not see the same material.Only a few Senators see everything the president sees. The rest see edited portfolios.

That is factually correct; I got ahead of myself there.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
They all know this, and they therefore traditionally defer to the president whenever there is any room for doing so.

Don't watch CSPAN much, do you? On the topic of invading Iraq, there was SERIOUS debate on both sides and coverage to prove it. If you are suggesting that the edited briefs omitted key findings that would have switched the vote another direction, I've got some beachfront property here in Kanas you might be interested in...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
No, the Senate did not "vote to invade." They voted to condone the use of force, in the event the Bush chose to make the executive decision to go to war. They voted not to tie the president's hands. They voted to apply more leverage on Saddam. They voted to keep all options open, including the military option.



Here's the summary of HJ Res 114, from the 107th Congress, 2nd session, just for you:

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 - Expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

Authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. Directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution.

Requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You seem to be equating the Senate resolution with a congressional declaration of war, but they are VERY different. A declaration of war has the affirmative effect of law, and commands a number of goernmental acts.

I fully understand that this wasn't a declaration of war, but it was a "de facto" resolution that declared the FULL intent for invasion, UNLESS Hussein met with the demands that the US and the international community had pushed for.

Resolutions like this don't pop up every day, or every year. Congress knew that this administration supported invasion if Hussein didn't abide by international law and they concurred in authorizing that power instead of blocking it.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I notice you used the passive voice here, which makes your meaning unclear. Exactly who genuinely thought that the evidence for WMDs was solid? Even the CIA admitted internally that it was not.

The current administration, past administrations, the CIA (yes, they LATER came out and said that some particular pieces were not fully flushed out, though not before the invasion with any particular fervor or might) MI6, Mossad; you name

JaTo e-Tough Guy Missouri City, TX 99 Contour SVT #143/2760 00 Corvette Coupe