Tuesday, January 28, 2003

 
Blix n' Bush: Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Don't think for a minute that the Bush administration has no influence over Hans Blix. What makes me throw out such a wild accusation? Well, maybe its because, when Hans Blix speaks, he sounds like a mouthpiece for the Bush Administration. For example:

"Iraq appears not to have come to genuine acceptance — not even today — of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and live in peace," Mr. Blix said, summing up a grim 15-page catalog of Iraq's chemical and biological arms programs that provided an exhaustive account of ways in which Saddam Hussein has failed to prove that he has eliminated illegal weapons. "

What? - "…failed to prove that he has eliminated illegal weapons." Are you kidding me. If this is the standard to prove someone guilty, then I demand that George W. Bush prove that he: did not arrange an abortion for his girlfriend back in the seventies, was not arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, did not go AWOL from the national guard, did not insider trade at Harkin, and is not a minion of Satan….and if he cannot prove that he is innocent of these charges then it is only fair that he be removed from office. I demand a regime change!

The point is that 1) the standard of proving one's innocence is as anti-American as I could possibly imagine and 2) Hans Blix and the Bush Administration are of the same, un-American voice on this matter.

In the end, this partnership means one thing… …Iraq is doomed. Bush has declared Iraq guilty until proven innocent. Citing the Hans Blix speech yesterday, Bush bemoaned the fact that Iraq hasn't stepped forward, admitted guilt and begged for mercy. In fact, he cites Iraq's lack of admission of guilt as well as the fact that they have not offered any proof of their guilt as evidence that Iraq is guilty. Did you get that? Okay, before untangling that mess, lets take a look at Blix's findings and see how they fit into the Bush "war-for-oil" puzzle.

Keep in mind that the reasons, as cited by the Bush Administration, for the current push to overthrow Iraq were (at an earlier point in time before Inspectors were dispatched):

1) Iraqi ties to al Queda
2) Iraqi support for terrorism
3) Iraqi possession of weapons of mass destruction with intent to use them on their neighbors and the US
4) Iraq's active nuclear weapons program

With this in mind, let's take a look at the first set of "evidence" presented by the suspect Blix. This "evidence" consisted of weapons that were never found. These phantom weapons are those that were supposedly reported by the Iraqi regime at an earlier date but have since failed either to be produced or to have proof of destruction and disposal. The inspectors have found nothing.

According to the Blix report:

~ Some 6,500 chemical bombs containing 1,000 tons of chemical agents and 'several thousand' chemical rocket warheads, known from previous declarations, are unaccounted for.

~ Iraq deliberately failed to declare 650kg of bacterial growth medium. This could produce 5,000 liters of concentrated anthrax.

~ Iraq claims to have destroyed 8,500 liters of anthrax, but has provided little evidence.

So they have provided some evidence. By the way, do countries typically keep the waste from disposed weapons material? In any event, lack of evidence showing the existence of weapons is hardly grounds for invasion. Of course, I'm not claiming that Iraq does not have the weapons that the Bush Administration accuses them of having. I am merely pointing out that the Bush Administration has a "guilty until proven innocent" foreign policy while practicing "Damned if you do. Damned if you don't." diplomacy. Clearly transparent and unacceptable…something a small child might do to get his sibling in trouble with their parents. The only objective that such tactics achieve is the creation of a hoax that allows the imminent destruction of Iraq and seizure of their oil. It does nothing to reduce the dangers to the American public from either terrorism or weapons of mass destruction.

Next, we have a set of "findings" that are heavy on ambiguity and speculation but light on evidence of an active WMD program.

~ Iraq has repaired equipment at a chemical plant previously destroyed by the UN, supposedly for the production of chlorine and phenols. (Do the inspectors have evidence to the contrary? Did the original UN resolution specify that equipment could not be rebuilt for commercial uses?)

~ Iraq claims it destroyed its stocks of VX gas after it proved to be of poor quality. But the UN says it has evidence that VX was "weaponized". (Okay, so where is the evidence. I find this hard to believe, at least that the evidence is compelling. Otherwise, this would have been the end of the inspections and the beginning of the invasion. Weaponized VX is no joke and certainly within the standards of the original Bush accusations. My guess is that, although there might be some signs that weaponization "possibly" took place. There is no sign of the weapon itself and there are holes in the "weaponization" theory. No smoking gun, just smoke and mirrors.)

~ Inspectors found a "laboratory quantity" of thiodiglycol, a precursor for mustard gas. (How much is a "laboratory quantity"? An ounce? A milligram? A ton? Is this enough to create a viable weapon? Could this material be used for any other purpose? Is there any evidence that it has been processed into mustard gas? )

The rest of the findings are evidence of various things including infractions of UN resolutions, but not evidence of a "Weapons of Mass Destruction" program and certainly not evidence of anything that is going to harm the US.

~ Iraq has supplied Al Samoud 2 and Al Fatah missiles - both ranges exceeding the UN imposed 150 km limit - to its army. These missiles are "prima facie cases of proscribed systems"

~ Iraq has imported 380 rocket engines that could be used for the Al Samoud 2 missile.

~ Iraq has "illegally" imported chemicals used in missile propellants, guidance and control systems. (Note that the chemicals are not chemical weapons, they are propellants. I'm sure the speech was purposely littered with keywords such as "chemicals" to make the situation sound more daunting than it actually is

~ The discovery of a handful of rockets capable of carrying chemical weapons. Blix speculates that this, "may be the tip of the iceberg. 'Several thousand' chemical rockets are unaccounted for."

~ Iraq has rebuilt casting chambers, previously destroyed by the UN and possibly used to make missiles with ranges above 150km.

But wait. What about Nuclear weapons? I recall Bush clearly terrifying the American public by proclaiming that Iraq was only six months from a nuclear weapon. Oh yeah. That was a bald-faced lie. Now I remember.

Don't get me wrong. I am certainly not an apologist for the Iraqi regime. I am also not an apologist for the Bush regime. The findings above should be corrected immediately. But an invasion of another country cannot be based on the paranoid speculation of war hawks. Indeed, if the implementation of war were left to the fantasies of right-wing chickenhawks, we'd all be dead by now and the Earth would be a lifeless shell.

Nevertheless, If there is evidence that warrants invading Iraq and overthrowing their government, then go to it. The thing is that there has been no such evidence, no such act of aggression, no threat of attack or evidence that they even have the ability to do so.

It seems clear that, as time goes on and the inspectors find little, the administration continues to lower the standard for invasion. There has been zero evidence of an active WMD program and not even a mention of any potential nuclear capability as the Bush Administration insisted in the beginning. Now, it seems sufficient evidence to the administration that Inspectors found a few crated, 20-year old warheads and some precursor materials for anthrax. Did they find actual chemical weapons? No. Did they find actual anthrax? No. Does it matter? No.

The bottom line is that Bush has defined the situation in such a way that Iraq is damned if they do and damned if they don't. Ironically, the administration has put the Iraqi regime in the same situation that the administration itself was in not long ago. At that point, the administration also refused to cooperate because the demand was so incredibly ridiculous.

"The United Nations resolution did not put the burden of proof on the United States or the U.N. to prove that Iraq has these weapons," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. "The U.N. resolution put the burden directly on Iraq to prove that it is disarming and that it does not have these weapons."

In other words, Iraq must prove a negative, and is refusing to do so. Almost a year to the day before Rumsfeld's remark, Fleischer was asked why the administration would not release details about meetings with energy companies such as Enron Corp. to prove that nothing untoward occurred. Fleischer replied: "You're asking us to prove a negative, and that's a road that we're not traveling."

Oh, Ari, Ari, Ari, you big, fat hypocrite.

You see, such a stance by the Bush Administration is not surprising. They have always set a standard for others higher than the standard they set for themselves. But to believe that this positioning is merely the result of arrogance and hypocrisy would be a grave mistake. Iraq was doomed from the beginning. The administration never intended to allow exoneration for Iraq under any circumstances. Their agenda was and is clear. We will have Iraq's oil. If you disagree, then prove me wrong.

posted by Thomas Ball 3:23 PM