Apr 24, 03 03:33 pm — "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

- US President George W. Bush in his March 20 ultimatum telling Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq within 48 hours or face the consequences.


Four weeks, three false alarms, and one nearly successful military campaign later, the US has found no conclusive evidence of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Was America right? Was Saddam Hussein breaking sanctions and harboring dangerous chemicals and nuclear warheads? Was he willing to sell these weapons to terrorist groups like Al Quada for the right price? Maybe. Was the Bush administration and US intelligence wrong about the whole thing, using the possible existence of illegal weapons as a curtain to shield the real reason for war - (oil, revenge, keeping the American public's worries and fear safely away from the shambles that America's economy, freedom, and environmental policy has become)? Who knows. But the world can be quite sure that under no circumstances would the Bush administration ever admit their "absolute proof" of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is faulty. It is inevitable that the US will eventually come up with these hidden WMD's the war in Iraq was supposedly fought over. But can we trust that the Bush administration is above planting, or fabricating WMD's in Iraq?

The world is getting antsy. The Bush Administration promised everyone from Jaques Chirac to Mrs. Suburban On-the-Fence Housewife of Illinois that weapons of mass destruction would be found and destroyed as a direct result of this war. Let's look at what has been done to fulfill that promise so far: Four weeks of American and British scouring of Iraq have turned up nothing. A possible underground nuclear warehouse turned out to be fully known about by the U.N., and kosher. In fact, the U.N. ended up scolding the marine unit that found the warehouse for breaking U.N. seals. Two possible chemical weapons storage houses ended up being fertilizer. Some of us fretted: When the military gets to Baghdad, all hell will break loose. Alas, Baghdad was captured without incident. As a result, people are starting to whisper doubts to each other, and countries are starting to increase pressure on the U.S. to come up with these 'phantom' weapons. When it comes right down to it, the US will have to provide some sort of evidence of WMD's in Iraq. When that happens, how can the public be sure the evidence wasn't fabricated? Can we trust the integrity of the United States alone to come up with WMD's in Iraq?

Going back a couple of months, we find that the United states has lied before. In March the Bush administration released documents proving that Iraq had been looking to buy uranium in Africa two years ago. The U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had a careful look at these documents and deemed them "not authentic". In another instance, Iraq had been discovered trying to purchase high strength aluminum tubes. Certain types of these tubes can be used to make centrifuges and are needed to enrich dangerous radioactive elements. The IAEA followed up with an extensive investigation of these tubes and decided that they are "not directly suitable" for centrifuges, therefore not suitable for the production of nuclear weapons. Nevertheless, in his State of the Union Address to America on January 28, Bush ignored the IAEA's investigation and claimed that Iraq had "attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production". Taking this information into account, the world can safely say that it is not below the Bush Administrations' morals to fib a little bit in order to put circumstances in its favor.

To satisfy the need for independent verification, the US will need either the U.N., or the IAEA (preferably both) in Iraq with the United States to ensure that any evidence they find is of the highest integrity. Unfortunately, the United States isn't too keen on that scenario. Although Britian is happy to keep the door open to the U.N. for independent verification, the U.S. is saying that they see "no immediate role" for Hans Blix and his team in Iraq. The International Atomic Energy Agency has repeatedly stressed since the beginning of this war that it and not the United States is responsible for finding nuclear weapons in Iraq. It fully expects to return to Iraq after hostilities cease. Dick Cheney has said that he "disagrees" with the IAEA's self perceived role in the search for WMD's.

Right now the United States has an Iraqi scientist in custody who is claiming that Iraq kept illicit arms until the "eve of war". He is claiming that Iraq secretly sent weapons to Syria, and led the U.S. to a site that is said to house the "building blocks" of chemical weapons. The U.S. is currently declining to identify this man and refusing to even give the branch of the Iraqi government that he previously worked for. The military claims that they could jeapordize this man's life by giving out any incriminating information including what chemicals were found at the site he led them to. The U.S. also won't let anybody interview this man. This sort of vague fractional information gives semblance to the Bush Administration's behavior three months ago, offering "irrefutable proof" of the existance of WMD's in grainy photos of unidentifiable buildings and badly translated random phone calls in Arabic between two unknown people.

The lack of integrity that the United States has exhibited since building up a case for a war in Iraq has shown that it can't be trusted to come up with proof on its own. When the United States government finally succeeds in offering up some evidence of the existence of WMD's in Iraq, we can only hope that it will be using more than second hand hearsay and forged documents as proof. Also, the world needs to put enormous pressure on the United States to allow Hans Blix, his U.N. inspection team, and the IAEA back inside Iraq to verify any findings. Until then the Bush Administration doesn't have a leg to stand on.

From Op-Ed at Kuro5hin.org

[Journal edited by ironix on 2003:04:24 15:35:31]