Yes, I know this thread existed before, but there's been some big new lies. Hans Blix has interviewed with the NYT and has contested what has been said by the Bush Admin. Let me begin with what cooperative research pointed out:
[quote]January 28, 2003. Powell’s comments after the weapons inspectors’ January 27 interim report.
(a) Allegation.
(i) Powell said, “The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.” [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
(5) January 30, 2003. State of the Union address.
(a) Allegation.
(i) President Bush said, “Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.” [US President 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that he knew of no evidence supporting that claim. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
<hr></blockquote>
In fact, Hans Blix's recent interview with the NYT showed that he feels the Bush admin is misrepresenting the inspector's finding, when not flat out lying, that is.
Here is the article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html" target="_blank">Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War</a>
The title says it all.
some excerpts:
[quote]
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, 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.
...
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.
...
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."
More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
<hr></blockquote>
In other news, an NYT op-ed by a former CIA Iraq analyst tells that the US concluded that it was Iran that gassed Halabja:
[quote]In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: “[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. … This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [New York Times 1/31/03]
<hr></blockquote>
Looks like they are really hurting for facts. Do we really want to be lead to war justified by an increasing number of falsehoods and stretched truths?
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[quote]January 28, 2003. Powell’s comments after the weapons inspectors’ January 27 interim report.
(a) Allegation.
(i) Powell said, “The inspectors have also told us that they have evidence that Iraq has moved or hidden items at sites just prior to inspection visits. That's what the inspectors say, not what Americans say, not what American intelligence says; but we certainly corroborate all of that. But this is information from the inspectors.” [U.S. Secretary of State 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that UN weapons inspectors had experienced no such incidents. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
(5) January 30, 2003. State of the Union address.
(a) Allegation.
(i) President Bush said, “Iraqi intelligence officers are posing as the scientists inspectors are supposed to interview. Real scientists have been coached by Iraqi officials on what to say.” [US President 1/28/03]
(b) Criticism.
(i) Hans Blix, the chief UNMOVIC weapons inspector, told the New York Times in an interview that he knew of no evidence supporting that claim. [New York Times 1/31/2003]
<hr></blockquote>
In fact, Hans Blix's recent interview with the NYT showed that he feels the Bush admin is misrepresenting the inspector's finding, when not flat out lying, that is.
Here is the article: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html" target="_blank">Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War</a>
The title says it all.
some excerpts:
[quote]
THE INSPECTOR
Blix Says He Saw Nothing to Prompt a War
By JUDITH MILLER and JULIA PRESTON
NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 — Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, 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.
...
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.
...
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."
More broadly, he challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."
<hr></blockquote>
In other news, an NYT op-ed by a former CIA Iraq analyst tells that the US concluded that it was Iran that gassed Halabja:
[quote]In an op-ed piece published by the New York Times, Pelletiere again explained that there was no conclusive evidence that it was Iraqi gas that had killed the Kurds in 1988. He wrote: “[A]ll we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds. This is not the only distortion in the Halabja story. … This much about the gassing at Halabja we undoubtedly know: it came about in the course of a battle between Iraqis and Iranians. Iraq used chemical weapons to try to kill Iranians who had seized the town, which is in northern Iraq not far from the Iranian border. The Kurdish civilians who died had the misfortune to be caught up in that exchange. But they were not Iraq's main target. And the story gets murkier: immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas. The agency did find that each side used gas against the other in the battle around Halabja. The condition of the dead Kurds' bodies, however, indicated they had been killed with a blood agent — that is, a cyanide-based gas — which Iran was known to use. The Iraqis, who are thought to have used mustard gas in the battle, are not known to have possessed blood agents at the time.” [New York Times 1/31/03]
<hr></blockquote>
Looks like they are really hurting for facts. Do we really want to be lead to war justified by an increasing number of falsehoods and stretched truths?
[ 01-31-2003: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
