Op/Ed EditorIraq is expected to transmit its declaration of weapons of mass destruction to the United Nations this weekend. Iraqi Vice President Tariq Aziz, among others, has continued to claim that his government harbors no such weapons. On the other hand, the Bush administration, by most accounts, has verifiable intelligence information proving Saddam Hussein continues a robust program of chemical, biological and even nuclear weapons. White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer stated yesterday at the daily press briefing that Americans have to choose whom to believe - a murderous dictator whose defiance of the world community sparked the Persian Gulf War or the Bush administration. What a choice!
At yesterday's press conference, Secretary Fleischer was grilled by at least three reporters, who tried to get a commitment from the Bush administration to release some of its intelligence vis-à-vis weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The secretary took the hard line, firmly maintaining that "the burden of proof lies with Saddam Hussein." Isn't there something problematic about this rationale?
Admittedly, it is hard to argue against the president's position on Iraq, particularly in light of the Gulf War and summary disintegration of Hussein's full-blown weapons program. It is hard to argue that Hussein has no biological, chemical or nuclear capabilities in 2002. Bush et al. have been quite content thus far to ride upon the coattails of popular support rather than come straight out and justify the impending war.
Conservative political commentator and author Pat Buchanan has broken the ranks of Republican unity on the Iraq war. He claims that the Middle East is already a hotbed of anti-American sentiment, Islamic fundamentalism and brutal dictatorships. Why, he asks, should we pour gasoline on the situation?
More importantly, what happened to the war on terrorism? It would seem that Osama bin Laden is still at large. The Taliban was defeated, but al-Qaeda is still a significant threat to the world. Though Iraq is a threat (along with every other authoritarian state with an evil dictatorial leader), the connection between Iraq and terrorism is just not there. If any country deserves the label of "terrorist training ground" it is Saudi Arabia. But the president would not dare endanger our lucrative oil-based partnership with the Saudis. In fact, our government seems perfectly content simply to ignore the fact that our worst enemies originated in there, including Osama bin Laden and most of the Sept. 11 hijackers.
America has been put in a position of enormous hypocrisy, all for what seems a fiery and emotionally-charged determination to vaporize Iraq. We ignore the threat Saudi Arabia poses to us. We pursue a "diplomatic solution" to the declaration of a weapons program by North Korea - another "Axis of Evil" country. Yet Iraq stands out like a sore thumb, the target of America's vast military machine. It hardly strikes one as coincidence that the Bush Administration includes a laundry list of government officials who successfully waged war against Iraq in '91, but were summarily kicked out of office by the American people in 1992.
That burden of proof lies with Saddam Hussein is the Bush party line. Wouldn't it do some good to drop us Americans a bone once in a while? Tell us what the hell is going on. Clearly, Hussein is an evil man, but, at this time, doesn't prudence dictate a little restraint? Let's first secure our own porous borders and lax customs regulations. In the case of war with Iraq, America is ill-prepared to invade. Thousands of American lives could be lost in a ground war in Baghdad. And what is more, we won't just be pouring gasoline on the Middle East conflict - we might just be giving terrorists the match, too.
