Time and time again, officials from the Bush Administration have been interviewed on various news programs and repeatedly insist that they have proof of their allegations against Iraq in regards to possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). However, they do a good job of not offering any concrete proof to substantiate these claims and they do a great job of avoiding simple questions put to them such as the recent question asked of the White House Communications Director by Wolf Blitzer: "Will there be any hard evidence offered by this administration in regards to their claims of Iraqi concealment of weapons of mass destruction"? Sadly, as expected, the answer was more rhetoric and nothing that could be independently analyzed or verified. Not only this, but even before the UN Inspectors left for Iraq, they were given what the Bush Administration then touted as "the latest high-tech equipment" to assist the inspectors in finding WMDs in Iraq (WMDs that were surely there but cleverly hidden, said Bush). Not surprisingly, now the Bush Administration borderlines labeling the UN inspectors as incompetent because they haven't found any WMDs or a "smoking gun" that the Bush Administration continues to insist exists.

I am not saying that we should just look the other way and allow Saddam (or anyone) to do as they please and threaten the security of the world (nor do I feel that anyone asking for solid proof is saying that), but I can't understand how the Bush administration can continue to insist, without offering any proof, on the true danger that Saddam represents to America and its interests and at the same time downplaying a very real threat from North Korea (also part of Bush's "Axis of Evil" ) which ALREADY has Nuclear weapons and is most likely building more as we speak), which has publicly stated on several occasions that it will use Nuclear Weapons to protect itself from "American Aggression".  

Recently it was reported by CNN that in speech delivered to some of his European counterparts, Secretary of State's Powell's stated that the US' evidence of Saddam's present guilt is Saddam's past? What kind of evidence is that? In America (a country operating under the "rule of law") when a person is prosecuted for a particular crime or allegations of a crime, it is incumbent on the prosecution to set forth its case, by offering evidence to substantiate their allegations. It is very rare that a person's past history is allowed to be proffered as evidence against present charges, and there are good and very wise for reasons for this. Would it be fair to President Bush to say that his past problem with alcohol is now clouding his present judgment?

In the current crisis with Iraq, all we ever hear from the Bush Administration is the tired chorus "we know he has WMDs". In fact, in Sunday's Los Angeles Times (January 26, 2003) the headline reads "Hard Claims but only Soft Proof so far in Iraq", with the story going on to say that the "UN Inspectors acting on data supplied by the CIA have YET to substantiate US Allegations". To date, the only concrete evidence offered to the world at large to date has been the 50-page dossier put forth by the British Prime Minister last year. Yet the Bush Administration continues to insist that "they know Saddam is lying and is amassing WMDs", and at the same time continuing to avoid offering ANY factual basis or evidence to support this repeated claim. Is empty and harsh rhetoric acceptable enough to allow thousands of lives to be thrown away by a war that is most likely unnecessary? If the Administration's true aim in disarming Iraq is to minimize the threat of nuclear arms in the hands of dangerous regimes, then why does the Bush Administration seem to have a double policy in regard to other rogue states that either have nuclear arms now (North Korea, Pakistan), or those threatening to develop and acquire them (Iran, Turkey)?

The hope that the President would offer real evidence and less rhetoric in his State of the Union address was quickly diminished by the conclusion of his speech. It appears that rather than present facts to support this maddening rush for war, that the President only continued using rhetoric to create fear and hysteria to bolster his case. While the President stated that Secretary of State Powell will offer evidence to the United Nations this week, I must say that this seems to be another empty promise that will be unrealized because of "the danger to intelligence sources" (which has been the continuing reason that no proof has been offered to date). Yet these are the same intelligence sources and agencies that dismissed many red flags in regards to the September 11th attacks in 2001.

Sadly, a growing number of people in America and the globe are finally realizing that regardless of the fact that even if Saddam complied with every present and possible new UN Resolution in regards to Iraq and its weapons programs (and even if Iraq went so far as to completely disarm), it is clear that the Bush Administration would invade Iraq anyway. After all, President Bush has gone on record to say in regards to war with Iraq that it was "personal, Saddam tried to kill my daddy." Unfortunately however, when we do invade Iraq (based on no proof just Bush's insistence of Saddam's guilt) that day will truly be a sad day for America, for when we invade other countries, without substantial proof, simply because our leadership says "we know they're guilty", and are acting 'preemptively', on that day we will be just as evil and aggressive (and as wrong) as Hitler was, as Saddam is and every other tyrant yet to come will be that uses 'preemptive rhetoric' as a pretext to invade another country for their own ulterior motives.

The Bush Administration continues to tell Americans (as well as the rest of the world) that the most imminent threat to us all is Saddam and Osama Bin Laden (although in times past the US Government supplied them BOTH with arms) and at the same time the Bush Administration delivers no proof of its allegations but rather harsh and empty rhetoric. Yet there are STILL thousands of people of middle eastern heritage being held without charge or possibility of bail in America as 'material witnesses' even after the justice department has admitted that most likely up to 90% of these are innocent, but will still continue to be held for the interests of 'national security'. Sadly, most of us are not up in arms about the fate of the innocents because it doesn't personally affect us. But one day, the innocent being held may be you or I, simply because since we are not 'for' Bush, then we MUST 'for' be the enemy...something to think about.

With there seeming to be no end to the evidence evasion tap dance by the Bush Administration in regards to war against Iraq, I thank God that the Bible speaks louder and with more clarity and certainty in these last and evil days: "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Psa 118:8). God help us all.