Return Modern Tribune Home Page

Signs Bush Does Not have "Solid" Proof

On Dec. 5, just two days before the Iraqis filed the declaration regarding WMD, the Bush administration widely announced it had "solid" evidence that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Once the Iraqi declaration was filed, the Bush administration responded with "great scepticism" to the 12,000 page Iraqi declaration. "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," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said at a regular briefing.

According to Sen. Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."   Even before the Declaration by Iraq on WMD, the Washington Times quoted a U.S. official familiar with the internal debate in the Bush administration as saying that the United States had decided it would find Iraq in "material breach." The Bush administration is ready to declare that Iraq's declaration of its weapons programs falls far short, and suggested that Saddam Hussein has missed his "last chance" to disarm. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said when President Bush called on Saddam "to disarm so peace can be preserved ... it is not a bluff."

After the Iraqi declaration was filed, the US was  positioned to present it's evidence to show that Iraq does in fact has weapons of mass destruction, but, it did not. With the "solid" "compelling" evidence that has been available (according to US sources), some wonder why Bush only had "great scepticism" about the truth of the Iraqi declaration. According to evidence Bush says he already has, he "knows" the Iraqi declaration is a lie. Armed with compelling evidence of the truth and a person that has not minced words in the past, "great scepticism" (of what Bush says he knows is a lie) causes some to challenge whether Bush in fact had the evidence he said he had on Dec 5. "If the US has anything to contrary, let them come up with it, give it to the [UN inspectors]. They are here. Why play a game?", Mr. Saadi, a 64 year-old UK-educated chemist, said after the declaration by Iraq was filed on December 7, 2002.

Finger pointing combined with concealing purported evidence stretches US credibility  and increases world concerns about the real motives of the Bush administration.  It is now time for Bush to backup his claims against Iraq and for Bush to put up the evidence he says he had on Dec.5. According to the Washington Post (Dec. 18),   a "new survey ... found that 58 percent of those interviewed would like to see President Bush present more evidence explaining why the United States should use military force to topple the Iraqi leader.

On Dec. 19, Secretary of State  Colin Powell  unilaterally announced at a press conference that the Declaration by Iraq on WMD was a "material breach" of United Nations Resolution 1441. Without any reference to US evidence, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said  that Iraq's weapons declaration constitutes a "material breach" of the U.N. resolution on its weapons of mass destruction programs. The document is "anything but full, accurate and complete" and that it "totally fails" to meet the resolution's requirements, Powell said. This finding of "material breach" by the US appears on course for the US to find anything it can in order to justify military attack on Iraq and keep it's "solid evidence" as secret as the formula for Coke or the algorithms for the "black box." .

The Bush administration has yet to produce the "solid" evidence of Iraqi WMD it claimed to have on December 5.Although the United States agreed with the decision to conduct the U.N. inspections, many in the administration have seen the process largely as a means of persuading an international coalition to fight what they believe is an inevitable war against Iraq. The US has failed or refused to provide any evidence, much less "solid evidence" that Iraq has WMD . On Dec. 19 Chief Weapons Inspector Han Blix stated that the US had not informed him of any evidence nor when he could expect it. A Russian diplomat said "this is not a poker game where you hold your hand."

On Dec. 20 White House spokesman Ari Fleischer addressed the issue on the US presenting it's evidence stating that the US would not reveal it's evidence because on the need to protect it's sources. The world is at the brink of a War, and potentially a World War, and the Bush administration is playing it's alleged evidence to close to the vest to convince the International world that it has the cards it said it had on Dec. 5.

On Dec. 20, faced with mounting pressure to reveal the alleged "solid evidence," the Bush administration announces it will reveal sights that, get this "might" have WMD. The US will apparently reveal a few at a time expressing fears that other will inform the Iraqis permitting them to move the WMD. It appears that a primary source of the US "solid evidence" derives form satellite photos.  And, now, the solid or compelling evidence the US had in hand on Dec. 5, must have somehow slipped into mere intelligence.

On Dec. 21, Iraq offered to let the US send CIA agents to take the UN inspectors to site where the US contends that WMD exist.

On Jan. 27, 2003, after month of UN inspections, there was still no clear evidence that Iraq pose an "imminent" threat the the US or it's allies.

In the Bush State of the Union Address on January 28, 2003, Bush provided no "new" evidence.

Return to Home Page - The Modern Tribune