by Scott Darnell
Daily Lobo Columnist
Let's pretend for a moment that I was to go to the 7-Eleven and buy a case of Bud Light (not that I'm old enough or that I drink, but hey -- we're pretending).
I walk back to my dorm and, going up the stairs, my Resident Assistant sees me with the case of beer -- or, more appropriately, what he thinks is a case of beer, but could also simply be an empty beer box that I may be using for a class project, or another type of beverage whose box looks like Bud Light's. Although he's suspicious, he continues walking down the stairs and will simply keep his eye on me through the night.
Later that evening, a neighbor in my hallway spots me drinking the Bud Light in my room and proceeds to tell my Resident Assistant about what he/she had seen. Already on alert to the fact that I might have beer in my dorm, my Resident Assistant thanks the informant and rushes down the hall to my room.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
OK, keep this scenario in mind for later, as I try to relay our nation's current status or position in our conflict with Iraq, as per just following President Bush's State of the Union Address. President Bush has been under immense pressure over the past few weeks from many moderates and Democrats in America to reveal more evidence against the Iraqi regime, evidence that proves it has not disarmed its weapons of mass destruction, thus more aptly justifying military action against the country. And, on Tuesday evening, America received what they asked for, at least in the minds of the Bush administration, and surprisingly enough, the media heads of most cable and non-cable news programs.
To summarize Bush's evidence he declared the following: that Iraq was reported by the United Nations in 1999 to have biological weapons materials sufficient to produce 25,000 liters of anthrax, more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, and as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve agent, all materials which have, up to this point, not been accounted for by the Iraqi government or its leader. In addition, the regime had "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents," and although Iraq denies their existence, 16 of them have been turned up and the government has given no evidence the rest have been destroyed.
More astoundingly, however, Iraqi defectors have told America Hussein has mobile biological weapons labs that are transported to evade inspectors, which have not been accounted for, and The International Atomic Energy Agency shows that Hussein has had a nuclear weapons development program, one that the British government recently confirmed had looked in Africa for uranium to use in his nuclear designs; these plans and activities have also not been explained by Hussein or the Iraqi government.
Other evidence included numerous human rights violations, including rape and torture of the Iraqi citizenry, and deception in the interviewing process of Iraqi scientists.
So, is this startling evidence the type of information the American people have wanted and needed? For most, yes; but to others, no. Staunch leftists have demanded that President Bush prove to the American people that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, not that, as the administration is doing, proving to the American people that Saddam has not disarmed the weapons he had throughout the 1990s.
If the United Nations is good enough now and the United States must operate under its guidelines, then it was good enough in 1999, when it declared and enumerated the weapons under Iraq's control. And President Bush exemplifies the security council's goal in today's conflict when he says, "The 108 U.N. weapons inspectors were not sent to conduct a scavenger hunt for hidden materials across a country the size of California."
The burden of proof is not on the United States, but instead on the Iraqi regime. It has had weapons of mass destruction, documented as late as three years ago, and a violation of U.N. sanctions occurs when it cannot prove that it has been eliminated and the regime disarmed.
Going back to the situation at the onset of this article, just as Iraq has to prove their disarmament, I better not send my Resident Assistant on a wild goose chase through my dorm room for all the beer I bought and I must instead explain, in full, what my intentions with the case and beer were, as well as where the case is currently at. My Resident Assistant had seen the beer, given me the benefit of the doubt and then had to crackdown. The United Nations has seen Saddam's weapons, we've given him the benefit of the doubt, and now it's time to crackdown. Saddam is a madman, unfit for weapons of mass destruction, as would I be, if I were to ever drink a case of beer.
War is not an enjoyable path, but must present itself when diplomacy breaks down or turns into a one-way street. Why would Iraq foster these weapons, at the expense of his people, if not for blackmail, terror, or war? I don't know if Saddam Hussein is a drinking man, but he better reveal that Bud Light before America and others permanently interrupt his disgusting reign of power.
