RICHARD BUTLER DESERVES A FISKING

SYDNEY (Reuters) - Former U.N. arms inspector Richard Butler said Tuesday that Washington was promoting "shocking double standards" in considering taking unilateral military action to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.

Butler, who led U.N. inspection teams in Iraq until Baghdad kicked them out in 1998, said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) undoubtedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, and was trying to "cheat" his way again out of the latest U.N. demand to disarm.

Which means that he's in material breach, and therefore deserves ouster, no?


But a U.S. attack, without United Nations (news - web sites) backing, and without any effort to curb the possession of weapons of mass destruction globally, would be a contravention of international law and sharpen the divide between Arabs and the West.

So...if the UN won't enforce its own rules, no one, least of all its main benefactor, should either? So in essence, one spineless appeaser (France, let's just say) could grind the entire international community to a halt, and let a scofflaw like Saddam go free?

"The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to regret," Butler said.

Notion of fairness...? Huh? We're talking about a flagrant criminal, who's run roughshod over international law and violated the cease-fire which allowed him to retain power, for a dozen years? We're also talking about, on the one hand, a dictator who thinks nothing of using human shields to protect his illegal weapons, and on the other hand, a democracy that expends great wealth on making its weapons as nearly incapable as possible of hitting errant targets. What should we do to make things fairer--hand Saddam a US Army division, an air wing and a few nukes, then go after him?

Butler's successor as the chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, Hans Blix, reported Monday to the 15-member Security Council that Baghdad had only reluctantly complied with its latest demand to disarm.


Washington is pressing the United Nations to take firm action but says it is prepared to go it alone and has amassed a considerable military force in the region.


Butler, addressing a conservative Australian think-tank, The Sydney Institute, said the stated U.S. motive -- to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction -- lacked credibility because of Washington's failure to deal with others on the same terms.


Countries such as Syria are suspected of possessing chemical or biological warfare capabilities, he said.

Maybe Butler missed the Gulf War, from which his own authority to inspect Iraq derived. Last time I checked, as bad as those other countries are they haven't quite put themselves in the crosshairs the way Saddam has. Besides that rather obvious fact, is Butler suggesting that we should either go after all rogue states, everywhere, simultaneously? Or none at all, because to single any one out would be unfair? That's ludicrous.

U.S. allies Israel, Pakistan and India have nuclear arsenals but have not signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

And your point is...?


The United States and other permanent Security Council members were themselves the possessors of the world's largest quantities of nuclear weapons, he said.

And your point is...?


"Why are they permitting the persistence of such shocking double standards?" Butler said.

Uh, because Iraq started a war it lost, and disarment was part of the price of that defeat. Again, did this guy sleep through the Gulf War?


He said that, instead of beating the drums of war, the United States should propose an international mechanism -- similar to the Security Council -- to enforce the application of the three main conventions controlling the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry.

Yeah, because we see how effective those kinds of things are right now, don't we? We can't even get agreement to take on an obvious case by the mechanisms currently in place. Butler is nothing more than a bureaucrat looking for relevance.

It should also take the lead by reducing its own stockpiles.

Which we're already doing...


"I hope we don't have to await the train wreck before we decide to change history," Butler said.

Follow this guy's logic, and that train wreck is a certainty.