On evidence and judgement

[unixronin]

I'd like to make a few comments concerning the whole issue of US intelligence regarding Iraqi WMD, and of the level of faith the administration placed in it as compared to that level which was warranted and justifiable.

To begin with, it seems the core of this whole issue is one of certainty vs. uncertainty, or evidentiary strength.  There is an established and known principle that "Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."  In other words, just because you cannot find any evidence for something does not mean, as a verifiable fact, that it does not exist.

However, look at the level of uncertainty involved in this.  It's saying that failure to find any evidence of something can make you 90%, or 99%, or 99.9% certain that it does not exist, but there's always that element of doubt, that 1% chance you were mistaken.

To put it simply, this 1% chance of error, this 1% chance that maybe Saddam DID have weapons of mass destruction after all, contrary to the complete lack of tangible evidence of such, is not sufficient justification for starting a war, and it's not a sufficiently strong rationalization to use as the public excuse for starting a war.  Governments must be held to a higher standard, especially when it comes to starting wars.  For months and months, George W. Bush trumpeted the threat of Iraqi WMD, and about half of America repeatedly asked, "Where's the beef?"  And it was never forthcoming.  Not one shred of convincing evidence could be shown.  We kept hearing, "We will reveal hard evidence next week," or "tomorrow," and tomorrow would come, and there would be a press conference at which nothing would happen but more hand-waving, more evasive generalizations, and more proof-by-allegation.

But we went to war on this rationale anyway.

Now, you can argue a couple of different ways on this.  You can say, "George Bush knowingly lied to the world and the American people in order to justify his war."  In that case, we should be impeaching him for starting a war under false pretences.  Let's face it, when you have that large of an intelligence effort devoted to digging up evidence for that long and you still can't find anything, it's pretty hard to continue convincingly pretending you didn't know that you didn't have anything.

You can say, "George Bush thinks that a 1% chance of a nation having WMD is justification to go to war."  In that case, who are we going to declare war on next?  India?  Brazil?  South Africa?  Japan?  We have, after all, strong satellite evidence that South Africa has tested nuclear weapons, and there are organizations known to operate in South Africa that are officially considered terrorist.  Heck, Nelson Mandela was imprisoned in connection with terrorism.

Or you can say that the Bush administration made an incredibly stupid error in trying to justify the war, both to America and to the world, solely on the grounds of "Well, all our intelligence to the contrary, we cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Iraq may have WMD," instead of "This man is a butcher who is oppressing and slaughtering his own people, who has committed atrocities against his own country's ethnic minorities with chemical weapons, whom we believe is a threat to the entire region, and in addition we know he had WMD programs, we know he has attempted to procure weapons of mass destruction in the past, and we cannot be certain that he does not actually possess them now."  On an issue this important and this major, how stunningly stupid is it to knowingly and voluntarily weaken your case?

Whichever way you look at it, though, whichever viewpoint you take, there is one conclusion that cannot be avoided:  No matter which specific error you select, and irrespective of the question of the actual merit of the war in Iraq and the twelve-years-overdue removal from power of Saddam Hussein, it cannot be denied that George Bush made gross errors of judgement at the highest level and in the most crucial arena of government, that of taking the nation to war, and that he continued and perpetuated those errors throughout the course of said war.

It is my opinion that those errors are undeniable signs of gross unfitness to continue to lead this nation.

Comments

Re: A few sites.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

Sorry, in a less flamey mode, yes, I bothered to read my sources. In the interest of academic honesty I presented sources for arguments both for and against what I had been saying. I could have just as easily daisy-picked the sources that supported my thesis, but since I found sources which contradicted what I had said, I decided to include the most solidly planted of those to contradict my own statments, in order to present the greatest totality of writing on the subject.

-Ogre

Re: A few sites.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Bah! If you can't flame over Iraq, what can you flame over. :-)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The economy, of course, you Republican stooge!


(He told me I had to.)

Re:

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

frickin' pawn of the New World Order...

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

OK, formalities have been completed. :)


This is not the argument you're looking for.

We can go about our business.

Move along.