Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I looked at that CIA report, JaTo. Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see any information in there that speaks to the reliability of the "evidence" in the report. In other words, it does not tell us where the information comes from, whether it can be verified, who supplied the information, and so forth. (You can be sure Bush got something much more detailed than this report)

Count the number of CIA dossiers that come along with an appendix that list the names of the agents, there whereabouts, the date they dug up this information, etc., etc.

From what I'm hearing, the only thing that would have convinced you that invasion was the correct course of action would be for a rogue nation to use WMD on the US or it's allies, as the level of evidence you are asking for was IMPOSSIBLE to come by.

This is PRECISELY the type of "reactive" instead of "proactive" thinking that will be the utter ruin of our way of life, in instances like this where taking preventative, proactive measure offers the . There comes a point when after a decade of walking like a duck, quacking like a duck and flying like a duck, the majority of the WORLD called Iraq a duck.

Again, we aren't talking about someone making vague accusations of WMD towards a spit of land on the South Pacific that are still playing with transistor radios; the accusations were leveled at Iraq, who had for 10+ years strug the WORLD along.

There are numerous points made that discuss intelligence coming from UNSCOM, UNIMOVIC and CIA activities. It also discusses the FACT in detail that Iraq never made a full accounting of missle programs, WMD, technical programs that dealt with nuclear/chemical/biochemical R&D, etc., etc.

Since, for all intents and purposes, was impossible to penetrate Husein's inner circle of leaders, we had to use the facts that we knew in conjunction with the best estimates that we could coroberate (i.e., that said pretty much what every other intelligence agency said).

If you are looking for an iron-clad guarantee in life and on intel, you know NOTHING about the business. The CIA, again, deals in probability as in many cases the only way to be proven 100% correct of someone'e nuclear/chem/biochem capabilities is either:

1) Have it used on you.

2) Have the party that has the equipment give a TOTAL accounting of it and allow unfettered access to all levels of the weapons programs.

We tried getting 2) done for a decade. It didn't work. Since we weren't too fond of risking 1) ever happening in light of 9/11, and after stating that we needed 2) countless times through the UN and 3 US administrations, the informed members of Congress and the House decided to agree upon invasion.


Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
To use the example in my last post, it's like having several witnesses who claim they heard the defendant state his intention to commit fraud, but having no information by which to judge the credibility of those witnesses.

If this was a trial on fraud, Hussein would have been taken out and locked up the FIRST time we found out he lied.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
We don't know if they are friends of the plaintiff, or convicted felons, or the Dalai Lama. Likewise, we don't know if the "witnesses" the CIA relied on are axe-grinding exiles, former Baathists angling for clemency, or the Pope himself. We don't know whether the CIA's statements about the various industrial sites are from unbiased witnesses, or from half-stoned goat-herders.

Again, some of the verbage against Hussein was taken directly from UNSCON and UNIMOVIC activities, CIA activities, as well as regime deserters and informers. These are the KNOWN sources. I can't and won't speculate on unknown sources...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
It's so easy to throw together a lot of alarming claims (and pictures, too!), but they don't prove anything unless you can assess their reliability.

The world's intelligence communities gave it a high probability of being accurate. I would trust this over anyone who practices bumper-sticker politics, any day of the year...

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
With this report, we cannot assess the reliability of the evidence at all. (Note: that doesn't make it a bad report - I know the CIA can't reveal its sources. It just makes the report useless to prove your point that Bush didn't lie.)

A lie is to INTENTIONALLY and KNOWINGLY deceive someone, when you factually know the opposite of what you are stating to be true.

If you choose to use such black and white language, then you are telling me that Bush, along with Congress, the House, the CIA and everyone else that raised alarm and concerns, and acted upon them, FACTUALLY knew that Hussein had ZERO WMD, was NEVER moving forwards with R&D plans on chemical/biochemical agents and was FULLY compliant with UN 1441 in meeting the letter of international LAW?

You and others have dodged countless questions I've posed. I REALLY want this one answered.

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
I also had a problem with the tone of the report. It reads like it is trying to persuade the reader, like it has an agenda. Not like a straightforward, factual, impartial intel analysis. I smell administration pressure on Tenet to produce the goods Bush wanted.

I won't say what I smell here...

If this was a partisan piece, then why does it often use the qualifiers like "probably, likely" and admit to inconclusive evidence in places?

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
You boldy stated that the report proved the CIA had strong evidence of WMDs, but it doesn't prove that at all. The report is a summary of evidentiary points, but it does not address the STRENGTH of the evidence.

It addresses, at a very high level, the mass of circumstantial and factual evidence gathered over 10 years (maybe longer) on Iraq, their programs and our concerns relating them.

Your response? It's a lie, as the CIA belived the same that Bush did (i.e., Iraq had WMD).

Originally posted by Rex Barnes:
Unless you can prove the CIA had STRONG, RELIABLE evidence of WMDs in Iraq, I will conclude that Bush lied when he told us there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMDs.

Fine. I can live with that as I would conclude that those who think this way to the exclusion of the actions and reams of circumstantial and FACTUAL evidence that suggested the contrary then are utter fools.




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