This "evidentiary" argument is bizarre under the circumstances. On the other hand, we have the "evidence" that W marshaled to promote his war. Blix's take on that side, via Zakaria:
Blix is unsparing of the United States in his concluding sections. He points out that virtually every claim made by American policy makers about Iraq's weapons programs -- aluminum tubes, yellowcake, mobile labs -- has proved to be false. The entire assessment of Iraq's weapons program, he argues, lacked any kind of ''critical thinking.'' In addition ''the contempt which both Vice President Cheney and the leadership in the U.S. Department of Defense appear to have held for international inspections deprived them, in effect, of a valuable source of information.'' Everyone recognizes the need for human intelligence in societies like Saddam Hussein's. Well, the inspectors, who met with Iraqi officials, traveled around the country and inspected sites, were human intelligence. nytimes.com
This isn't , of course, a judicial matter, but it would seem reasonable that the burden of evidentiary prove be on the people wanting to start a war, not the people trying to avoid it. Unless you really dig war, which seems to be the case with the war president. He's never going to change, you know. |
