THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 203, December 16, 2002
HAPPY BILL OF RIGHTS DAY!
Exclusive to TLE
In a December 6, 2002 article, the Washington Times reported that the US White House claims to have "solid" evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The Times quoted White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer:
"Iraq has lied before, and they're lying now about whether they possess weapons of mass destruction. Tariq Aziz's statement is very much like statements that Iraq made throughout the '90s, denying that they had weapons of mass destruction, when, of course, it was found that they indeed had weapons of mass destruction."
"The president of the United States and the secretary of defense would not assert as plainly and bluntly as they have that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction if it was not true, and if they did not have a solid basis for saying it,"
Of course, that is a little difficult to read without giggling. This is the same White House that has been spewing a series of lies ([examples]) in an attempt to rationalize bloody war, including a reference to an International Atomic Energy Agency report from 1998 which stated that Iraq was just six months away from developing a nuclear weapon.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said back on September 26, 2002.
Dubya epitomizes the old saw about lying and politicians' moving lips. This continuing war - please note that the US and UK never did stop bombing Iraq (in a no-fly zone police action never authorized by the UN) after the supposed end of the 1991 Gulf War - has more to due with hawkish arm flexing, oil, and Bush family pride than security or justice.
Stifle your giggles for a moment and assume for the sake of argument that Dubya suffered a mental glitch and accidentally spoke the truth this time. Pretend that the White House really does have this incontrovertible, definitive, damning evidence. OK, I know; but try.
Beg pardon, but why hasn't he shared it with the UN weapons inspectors?
Seems to me that it would save ever so much time and money -- and blood -- if Dubya simply gave the information to the inspectors, who could then go right to the Iraqis and demand the weapons. We wouldn't have to bother with all the propaganda posturing by both of these "national leaders," or watching inspectors wander aimlessly across Iraq. Or get a bunch of people killed in a war to find and destroy them.
Why is the US President obstructing an investigation; obstructing justice?
Put it perspective: Let's say that the jackbooted incompetents at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms announced that they were investigating some poor slob suspected of building an unlicensed machine gun, but they can't actually find one. Bear in mind that a machine gun isn't even a weapon of mass destruction. Now let's say that I spoke up, declaring that I had proof positive that this suspect was guilty, but refused to share it with the fed thugs. What would be the reaction?
Well, assuming the ATF clowns didn't simply machine-gun my front door, then call for the FBI to incinerate me, I imagine that I'd be rotting away in a federal prison somewhere, convicted of obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and RICO charges. All for failing to cooperate in an investigation.
Just like Dubya and the Iraq investigation. No wonder the boy didn't want Americans to be subject to the International Criminal Court.
Or is he just lying again?
- - -
This turned up after I sent my articles.
Of course, "finding" 12 shells that were found, marked for destruction, then abandoned by the inspectors back in the '90s is kinda stacking the deck.