Blix refutes Bush's claims about Iraq

[Miramonti]

Nytimes.com (req. registr.)

Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.

He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."

 

[XMan]

Well, I guess we'll see on Wednesday, won't we?

But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: X-Man
But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

True.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: X-Man
But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities.

 

[Moonbeam]

If we had evidence we wouldn't be making it up. Anyway the idea is to find pallatable reason to mass kill the Iraqis because we want to take over their country not because we worry about WMD. That's just the pretext.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: X-Man
Well, I guess we'll see on Wednesday, won't we? But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

Hell, I wish I had photoshop. I could have some really great "evidence"

 

[XMan]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man
But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. <STRONG>But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities</STRONG>.

No offense, but it's been my understanding that the imagery we're going to lay out Wednesday is new to the UN.

Like I said, we'll see on Wednesday.

 

[Zebo]

I really wish we'd drop all the bull and just go in cuz it's the right thing to do. Bush is loosing this PR campaign and American image looses too. We know he has WMD if he has any jetliners, right?

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: X-Man
No offense, but it's been my understanding that the imagery we're going to lay out Wednesday is new to the UN. Like I said, we'll see on Wednesday.

Wednesday will be interesting, but I'd give it a couple more days after that to start getting articles like this one noting what may be true and what may be more lies from washington.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man
But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. <STRONG>But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities</STRONG>.

This just in...geiger counters in Baghdad are reportedly reading 500 rads per hour. Un Chief Inspector Hans Blix says there is no proof that it is anything more than the radiation being given off due to all the televisions in the city being tuned to CNN 24/7 so the snapping of the Great Satan's neck is not missed.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man
No offense, but it's been my understanding that the imagery we're going to lay out Wednesday is new to the UN. Like I said, we'll see on Wednesday.

Wednesday will be interesting, but I'd give it a couple more days after that to start getting articles like this one noting what may be true and what may be more lies from washington.

That's right Washington lies, lies, lies and Saddam is a sweet, innocent, mis-undertood man.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So we are going to see proof that Saddam is planning to attack the US directly or through terrorists? Cool.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: 308nato
This just in...geiger counters in Baghdad are reportedly reading 500 rads per hour. Un Chief Inspector Hans Blix says there is no proof that it is anything more than the radiation being given off due to all the televisions in the city being tuned to CNN 24/7 so the snapping of the Great Satan's neck is not missed.

Yes, and did you see the photo of Blix in his office, he's glowing!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man
But if there's satellite imagery of guys loading up trucks and leaving from multiple sites right before the inspectors show up, that's a bit hard to refute, no matter what Blix says.

Both sides agree that American satellites photographed what American analysts said were Iraqi clean-up crews operating at a suspected chemical weapons site they had identified within 48 hours after the information about the site was shared with Unmovic. <STRONG>But the diplomats say inspectors concluded that the site was an old ammunition storage area often frequented by Iraqi trucks, and that there was no reason to believe it was involved in weapons activities</STRONG>.

If it was frequented often, why doe the age matter?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I really wish we'd drop all the bull and just go in cuz it's the right thing to do. Bush is loosing this PR campaign and American image looses too. We know he has WMD if he has any jetliners, right?

He is losing the PR campaign because the left is forcing the issue. The left should be more than satisfied.


We have permission from congress.
We have UN approval.
We are not doing unilateral.

I think the left will only think it is the right thing to do if the easter bunny and santa clause join in.

 

[308nato]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: 308nato
This just in...geiger counters in Baghdad are reportedly reading 500 rads per hour. Un Chief Inspector Hans Blix says there is no proof that it is anything more than the radiation being given off due to all the televisions in the city being tuned to CNN 24/7 so the snapping of the Great Satan's neck is not missed.

Yes, and did you see the photo of Blix in his office, he's glowing!

Warm beer does that to a fella'.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man No offense, but it's been my understanding that the imagery we're going to lay out Wednesday is new to the UN. Like I said, we'll see on Wednesday.

Wednesday will be interesting, but I'd give it a couple more days after that to start getting articles like this one noting what may be true and what may be more lies from washington.

That's right Washington lies, lies, lies and Saddam is a sweet, innocent, mis-undertood man.

Saddam isn't our leader, Bush is. I hope I'm not alone in lacking appreciation for being lied to by the president, just so that he can win a PR campaign. Put the facts out there. If he's right, the facts will speak for themselves.

But don't put lies out there. It might make people think that you're insecure about the truth, whether some is true or not.

 

[Double Trouble]

That's right Washington lies, lies, lies and Saddam is a sweet, innocent, mis-undertood man.

Nope, Saddam is an egomaniac and a liar, that much has pretty much been proven. However, in my mind it's equally clear that I don't trust the white house (or any administration of any government for that matter) simply because they "say so". Blind trust is a bad thing, especially when it comes to governments. They tend to do anything they need to in order to get the people to believe whatever they want. If that includes bold face lies, it certainly wouldn't be the first time or the last time....... In that respect, Baghdad is no different than DC.

 

[Gaard]

<<We have UN approval.>>

Approval for what?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: X-Man No offense, but it's been my understanding that the imagery we're going to lay out Wednesday is new to the UN. Like I said, we'll see on Wednesday.

Wednesday will be interesting, but I'd give it a couple more days after that to start getting articles like this one noting what may be true and what may be more lies from washington.

That's right Washington lies, lies, lies and Saddam is a sweet, innocent, mis-undertood man.

Saddam isn't our leader, Bush is. I hope I'm not alone in lacking appreciation for being lied to by the president, just so that he can win a PR campaign. Put the facts out there. If he's right, the facts will speak for themselves.

But don't put lies out there. It might make people think that you're insecure about the truth, whether some is true or not.

I have seen the facts. I am quite convinced Saddam needs to go. I am convinced he is hiding stuff. I am convinced he has an active weapons programs. I beleive he at the very least is providing safe harbour to Al Queda. I know he fund terrorists.

I am certain removing him from power is the right thing to do. If I were called to help, I would go without hesitation.

 

[Jeffwo]

I got a pic of Blix and a goat I am threatining to send to Powell!

Jeff

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
I really wish we'd drop all the bull and just go in cuz it's the right thing to do. Bush is loosing this PR campaign and American image looses too. We know he has WMD if he has any jetliners, right?

He is losing the PR campaign because the left is forcing the issue. The left should be more than satisfied.


We have permission from congress.
We have UN approval.
We are not doing unilateral.

I think the left will only think it is the right thing to do if the easter bunny and santa clause join in.

WWRD

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<We have UN approval.>>

Approval for what?

Severe consequences is in the resolution 1441. I would call removal by force severe.

 

[308nato]

It's real simple for him. All he has to do is show the stuff declared after the Gulf War that's missing or document where it went and how it was destroyed.

If he does that then there would be zero support for an attack and the UN would be forced tp lift the sanctions ASAP.

Why doesn't he do it if he is clean ?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Gaard
<<We have UN approval.>>

Approval for what?

Severe consequences is in the resolution 1441. I would call removal by force severe.

You interpret the fact that 1441 says 'severe consequences' to be a nod of approval by the UN to attack?