I've made the argument time and again that attacking Iraq absent an overt act of hostility would be a reprehensible act by a US government that sees itself as the world's moral policeman. Now, rather than making the argument myself yet again, I'll defer to O. Ricardo Pimentel of the Arizona Republic.
The administration has been telling us what a bad guy Saddam is. The problem: We know this.
But Saddam is piling weapons of mass destruction, right? Again, it doesn't take much of a stretch to believe. And, in fact, we know he has used mustard gas against the Kurds in northern Iraq.
So, the fear must be that he will unleash these weapons against us or our allies or make them available to terrorists.
OK, prove it. Make the case.
Don't just tell me he has weapons of mass destruction. Convince me he's likely to risk obliteration by using them or causing them to be used by others. Convince me that the probability is such that American lives should be risked.
Al-Qaida or Sept. 11 ties? Again, show me definitive proof.
If Iraq is indeed guilty of crimes against mankind, how difficult would it be for the Shrub Administration to make the argument and back it up? Given the Administration's history, and it's willingness to play fast and loose with facts, I want to see proof. If they have evidence and can make a compelling case, fine. I may even change my mind. Until and unless evidence is produced, though, I cannot in good conscience pretend to approve of attacking a country that has committed no hostile act against the US.
Why is this such a difficult concept for Conservatives to grasp? If you think we should invade Iraq, make the case. Don't simply assume that Americans will take Shrub at his word. He may have (unjustifiably) high approval ratings, but if he proposes to send American soldiers to fight (and die), we should not meekly give him carte blanche. There's an old Russian proverb- "Trust, but verify"- that seems very appropriate in this case.
Show us the evidence, Mr. President.