The "Burden Of Proof" Is Now On Cheney

Good on the Times Of India for picking this one up.

Dick Cheney claimed this week that the USA "never had the burden of proof" with regard to Saddam's WMDs. Instead, he argued, it was up to Saddam to prove that he did not have WMDs. And of course, in Cheney's version of reality, Saddam failed to supply this proof, which is why a reluctant USA was eventually forced to attack him.

From what I have seen (and I read a LOT) this bizzarro logic has gone totally unchallenged by the US press. Why?

Let's start with the bloody obvious..

UN Weapons Inspectors had covered huge swathes of Iraq and come up with no evidence of WMDs. While Saddam was certainly playing games with them and only reluctantly complying with their demands, he was nevertheless complying. It was never up to Saddam to prove that he did not have WMDs - how can you prove you do not have something which you do not have? - it was up to the UN to prove that he had WMDs, and it was up to Saddam to comply with the UN.

The Bush administration was also "burdened" with a need to work with the UN and to comply to international laws. The burden proved to heavy for them. They said they could not wait for the UN to finish their work (they forced UN weapons inspectors to flee Iraq) because the threat from Saddam was so great, and so urgent, that they had to act immediately. In this case, there most certinaly was a burden of proof on the USA. That's why Colin Powell delivered that ludicrous speech on WMDs, to his eternal shame. Do you even remember that speech, Dick?

Who is the one "re-writing history" here? Why are the press letting him get away with it?

Given the number of totally whacko pronouncements Dick Cheney has made over the past few years, I would say there is now a burden of proof on him to show that he is not either (a) insane, or (b) an immoral, homicidal liar whose continued service as Vice President defiles not just that office but the once-proud reputation of the United States itself.