Originally posted by JaTo:
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.

You're jumping to unsupported conclusions again, JaTo. Rex never said he would only support the invasion if we were actually attacked. Remember all that stuff about the "presence of sufficient evidence"? Sufficient evidence means that there is enough reliable evidence for a reasonable person to believe that an attack on us or an ally is going to occur in the reasonably forseeable future. That's a fair standard, and this war did not meet it. You (and Bush) may have a different standard (such as "we can attack if we are concerned, based on evidence that may or may not be reliable, that Iraq will attack us or an ally"). That is a very different standard, and I think it is an immoral one. It is a recipe for perpetual war.


Originally posted by JaTo:
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 . . . :

Who's asking for guarantees? Who's asking for "100% correct"? There you go with the dramatic overstatement again. All I am calling for is a reasonable standard based on reliable evidence.



Originally posted by JaTo:
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...

I am not aware that any agencies (other tha US and UK) gave it a "high probablility."

You still haven't addressed the main point: the evidence Bush claims to have relied upon was largely unverified and uncorroborated. He took us to war on the kind of evidence that wouldn't support a $500 judgment in small claims court. You and Dan haven't shown me anything to support Bush's evidence as being the kind on which a reasonable person would decide to launch a $200 billion war, in which tens of thousands of human beings will die. You just keep saying that "everyone thought Saddam had WMDs." Well BIG F****** DEAL!! That doesn't make the evidence any stronger, nor does it make Bush any less at fault. Any judge or jury would laugh you out of court if you tried to convince them it was OK to drive 100 mph in a 35 mph zone, because several people told you it was OK.

Originally posted by JaTo:
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?


That is not what Rex was saying at all, and you know it. Nobody knew anything for certain. All he's saying is that Bush almost certainly knew the evidence was weak, too weak for the public to support the war. Sure, we all thought Saddam had something, otherwise, what was he hiding? But most of us (and remember, most Americans did not support the war in Iraq, and do not support it now) thought the case for war was not good enough yet. We were correct.

Originally posted by JaTo:
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.

I read it, and I don't think it makes its case. It is provocative and even alarming. But anyone who is trained to analyze masses of evidence would ask for the substance behind it.