Posted by Dan Ewert : 9/08/2002 03:49:00 PM (Archive Link)
One of the things I keep reading in the news lately is that the U.S. shouldn’t attack Iraq unless it demonstrates proof of its accusations against Saddam. I find this strange and amusing… “proof.” What exactly is acceptable proof for them? Would they prefer a signed affidavit from Saddam Hussein in which he admits developing, producing, and stockpiling weapons of mass destruction as well as aiding and harboring terrorists? Oddly enough, I don’t think even this would convince some. They speak of proof without stating what would be sufficient. Hussein has empirically resisted and impaired any and all attempts of the international community to investigate his WMD programs. Using the inspection method, proof is impossible. If we use spy photos, these will not be enough for the doubters. Hussein has done well at hiding his dirty laundry and even if we identify WMD facilities or weapons, the doubters will only say we have misidentified them. So no proof is sufficient, but frankly, I find it irrelevant. There is far and away enough circumstantial evidence to support our case and most of that evidence has been supplied by Hussein in the past. We know what he’s done and we know what he’s tried to do. A megalomaniac doesn’t change his ways.