Evidence wins believers in SouthCoast
By Steve Urbon, Standard-Times senior correspondent

Experts might be able to poke holes in it, but Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations won high praise from supporters and grudging admiration from critics in SouthCoast.
Dr. Brian Williams, a history professor at UMass Dartmouth and a harsh critic of Bush administration's Mideast policy, was impressed with Mr. Powell's address. "It does present a casus belli (the case for war)," he said.
"I am in agreement with a huge chunk of it," he said. "It will satisfy Bush and those who want to use the troops we have in place already."
Republican state committeeman Arthur Larrivee said he listened to the entire speech in his office and "I think he did an extraordinary job. He tried to explain all the facts as he knows them. He tried to get the message across that Saddam Hussein is a bad man."
As far as the effect, though, he said, "We'll have to wait and see how the world looks at it." In any event, "Saddam Hussein needs to be stopped."
Bristol County Sheriff Thomas M. Hodgson also applauded Gen. Powell for making a case based on facts that the United Nations members themselves can verify.
He said it is absolutely necessary for the United States to eliminate the threat posed by terrorist cells supported by regimes such as Saddam Hussein's. "If the greatest threat is covert warfare, the only way to deal with it is to wipe out the people who are orchestrating and developing these cells," he said.
Saddam Hussein, he said, "is a vicious murderer clearly working behind the scenes. That's the danger. That's what was going on in the collapse of the World Trade towers. If anyone believes there are no cells in Iraq, they are fooling themselves. And we have cells in the United States that are working. Where do people think they are organizing from?
"If they slither into our country, we're going to be faced with a real difficult problem," Sheriff Hodgson said.
Dr. Bal Ram Singh, a UMass Dartmouth professor of chemistry and an expert in biological weapons, especially botulism, also was impressed by Gen. Powell. "The way I see it, the case is being made for a decision that has already been made," he said. "Weapons of mass destruction these days is a good term to use. Even if there's a speck of it, people are scared."
In this case, however, he said there is much more than a speck. "If there is any regime in the world that has been probed and found guilty of having biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, it is Iraq. It is also clear that they're trying to hide them. The point is that this can make a big difference in the future.
Saddam Hussein "has the determination to flex his muscles in any form he can develop it." It would be best if Saddam Hussein complied with the U.N. resolutions, he said, but he does not expect that to happen.
Dr. Singh had both a professional and a political view. "We, of course, don't want anybody to have biological weapons," he said. But as far as the political decision to go to war is concerned, he asked, "Are they only critical in Iraq and not anywhere else?"
An added concern, he said, is the ease with which such weapons can be concealed, even in the event of an occupation of Iraq. "It's very easy to hide, very easy to incubate," he said. "And if you keep it for a long time, no one knows what you have."
On the positive side, he said biological weapons are easy to destroy, easier than chemical and certainly easier than nuclear weapons.
But, he said, the biological weapons are more fearsome, with no telltale smell.
Dr. Singh is convinced of one thing, however: President Bush is not moving against Iraq because of oil, or vengeance for his father.
"I really believe it's a fight against terrorism," he said.
That being the case, it would do well for the United States to show force on the border of Saudi Arabia, which Dr. Singh sees as the major source of support for terrorism. The problem, he said, is that the United States cannot attack the capital of Islam, but instead must send a message from next door in Iraq.
Dr. Singh and Dr. Williams said the Powell speech was effective in large part because it was not especially nuanced, and instead drew a stark picture that appeals to Americans' dislike of ambiguity.
"It was the bare minimum to erase ambiguity," Dr. Williams said. "That's why it's dangerous." There was just enough circumstantial evidence to convince those who don't have the in-depth understanding" of the issues, he said.
The mere fact that it was Gen. Powell and not another member of the administration also made a tremendous difference. "He has incredible credibility," Dr. Williams said. "Americans trust Powell much more than they trust Bush or Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. This coming from Powell means much more than if it came from the war hawks."
Still, Dr. Williams said the speech was designed to deflect serious inquiry. "This is just enough circumstantial evidence, just enough flimsy evidence, to impress Americans and to potentially make fence sitters like the French buy in. It's window dressing."
Dr. Kenneth Manning, a UMass Dartmouth professor of political science, was likewise impressed with Gen. Powell's speech. "It's amazing how much more effective Powell was than Bush" in his State of the Union, he said. "Powell was so much more convincing. He was a smash in terms of the president's position."
Dr. Manning said, "My whole feeling has been that Bush is doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. The more he's able to lay out arguments that Saddam is not in compliance with the U.N. resolutions, the more powerful the argument is. Oil or vengeance is the wrong reason.
"The fear domestically and internationally is that those are the things driving what he (Bush) is doing. But the more (Powell) talks about noncompliance, the more legitimacy action against Saddam has."


This story appeared on Page A1 of The Standard-Times on February 6, 2003.