Why is the President Lying ... again?

I have a question about Kerry's global test, which incidentally is related to the scientific philosophy. We all know that in science, proof is rarely, if ever, mentioned; at least ideally it shouldn't be. You have evidence supporting a position and evidence against a position, never proof of a position.In Kerry's test, then, how do you prove legitimacy to the world? What if you present a lot evidence for your position, and yet the world is still unconvinced you have "proven" your case? After all, "prove" is a pretty subjective concept. Is he just saying we have to present sufficient evidence for a position from our perspective, even though other countries may disagree with our conclusion?Now, I think if we have sufficient evidence most countries will agree with us. I'm worried, though, about countries who will disagree with us for political reasons. Do we need to prove to these countries the legitimacy of our actions before we can take action? And if so, isn't that similar to a world vote?This post may or may not be comprehensible since it is early in the morning, but I'm sure you guys can get the jist of my concerns.

I have a question about Kerry's global test, which incidentally is related to the scientific philosophy. We all know that in science, proof is rarely, if ever, mentioned; at least ideally it shouldn't be. You have evidence supporting a position and evidence against a position, never proof of a position.In Kerry's test, then, how do you prove legitimacy to the world? What if you present a lot evidence for your position, and yet the world is still unconvinced you have "proven" your case? After all, "prove" is a pretty subjective concept. Is he just saying we have to present sufficient evidence for a position from our perspective, even though other countries may disagree with our conclusion?Now, I think if we have sufficient evidence most countries will agree with us. I'm worried, though, about countries who will disagree with us for political reasons. Do we need to prove to these countries the legitimacy of our actions before we can take action? And if so, isn't that similar to a world vote?This post may or may not be comprehensible since it is early in the morning, but I'm sure you guys can get the jist of my concerns.

Thanks for the responses. Let me see if I can articulate the global test we are all talking about.The global test refers to two basic criteria, as Kerry stated:1.) The nation understands the reason for attack and the majority are behind it.2.) The preemptive action is legitimized by agreed upon international standards.In the event that the fulfilling of the international standards is questionable, it is pertinent of the nation that is using preemptive action to prove the legitimacy of the action after the fact. If this is done, we passed the global test. If not, we failed. It is up to the nation to take a gamble with their credibility.I also just realized that Kerry speaks in the past tense when he says, "you can prove to the world that you did it for legitmate reasons."The Iraq War would fail on a couple of counts. First, there was little evidence for the WMD programs, making the justifications at best questionable. Second, much of the evidence that was used was based on unsubstantiated interpretation of the intelligence and was the result of data mining (Aluminum tubes, for instance. Why were we not told that the top experts questioned the stance that these we used for nuclear weapons production?). And Third, we could not prove the war was justified after the fact.First, is this an accurate interpretation of the Global Test? And second, are there any problems with this test if I interpreted correctly