Hans Blix is a Liar

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
1) In his 3/7/2003 written report, Hans Blix indicated Iraq had drones which exceeded the UN's 90 mile range limit. These could be used to drop chemical weapons. BLIX MADE NO MENTION OF THIS IS HIS ORAL REPORT.



2) In the same written report, Blix indicated that inspectors had "credible evidence" that Iraq still possessed Anthrax. Once again, BLIX FAILED TO MENTION THIS ORALLY.



Blix is a tool. He knows there are still weapons there that Saddam hasn't declared. He knows he probably won't find them.



I ask you: How mnay more violations will it require on Iraq's part to trigger military action? 5? 10? 100?
«1345678

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 160
    I doubt he is a liar. He's in a tough spot.



    He knows that there is going to be a war and he knows that it is relatively unpopular. He's not about to make any more comments that could be seen as a trigger for war. He doesn't want to be held personally responsible for that. I don't blame him. It puts him in a place where it is better to err on the side of caution and to understate Iraqi gross non-compliance.



    Of course the absurdity is that we all know that Iraq is in total non-compliance and is not truly disarming. The legitimate argument of the anti-war group is that war is not worth it in spite of that because the danger does not exceed the penalty of going to war. But unfortunately the question of compliance is being used as a proxy debate rather than getting at the real issue which should have been debated more fully by that crowd before 1441. Undoubtedly some will continue to spin what 1441 meant, but the diplomats all knew how it broke down but whatever.



    Blix may come out of this looking like a complete fool. The IAEA absolutely bungled their assessment of the Iraqi nuclear program years ago when he was their director. That certainly hasn't helped his rep. If Iraq is found to have massive amounts of WOMD and if some of the claims that he has disputed prove to be true then he will lose all credibility. Some people are already saying that he is too soft for the job. We'll see. Alternatively, if relatively small quantities of WOMD are found than he would be golden.
  • Reply 2 of 160
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 18,020member
    I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he took over. The more I see of him, the more he shows his agenda. No one woud hold the man responsible if he came out and said Iraq is in almost total non-compliance.

    His ridiculous "this is real disarmarment" comment is laughable. We know the man is producing more missles. For God's sake, how can he even keep a straight face?
  • Reply 3 of 160
    rick1138rick1138 Posts: 938member
    [quote] We know the man is producing more missles.<hr></blockquote>



    How do you know this? Where is the evidence?
  • Reply 4 of 160
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Hans just didn't want to give them the sound bite. He's the Puppet of Paris.
  • Reply 5 of 160
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    I think he's just looking after his own job, which at this point puts him more in France's camp than the US's.
  • Reply 6 of 160
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    [quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:

    <strong>I think he's just looking after his own job, which at this point puts him more in France's camp than the US's.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Whoa. So he's not saying stuff like, "We found some bombs!" when he has, so he can keep himself in Iraq for a few months longer, and so keep his job.



    You have lost the ****ing plot, if I could just point out.
  • Reply 7 of 160
    haraldharald Posts: 2,152member
    [quote]Originally posted by SDW2001:

    <strong> His ridiculous "this is real disarmarment" comment is laughable. We know the man is producing more missles. For God's sake, how can he even keep a straight face?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    1) If destroying al-Samoud missiles is not disarmament, what it is?



    2) How do we know he's producing more missiles? Because the UK government says so (they're the people who produced faked evidence of uranium imports from Niger)? Or because the US says so (they're the people who claimed a delerict factory and bakery was an al-Qaeda training camp)?



    Who says so?
  • Reply 8 of 160
    [quote]Originally posted by Scott:

    <strong>Hans just didn't want to give them the sound bite. He's the Puppet of Paris.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Beyond caricature.
  • Reply 9 of 160
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    [quote]Originally posted by Harald:

    <strong>



    Whoa. So he's not saying stuff like, "We found some bombs!" when he has, so he can keep himself in Iraq for a few months longer, and so keep his job.



    You have lost the ****ing plot, if I could just point out.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sich a rude little boy. Gotta lighten up a bit too.
  • Reply 10 of 160
    kelibkelib Posts: 740member
    [quote]Hans Blix is a Liar <hr></blockquote> No he's not. He's an honerable gentleman
  • Reply 11 of 160
    eloelo Posts: 22member
    I always find it interesting how quick some people are to distrust America or President Bush and yet have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to Hans Blix and even Saddam Hussein! Who is more trustworthy? Bush or Saddam? Bush says Saddam is producing missiles and hiding wmd. Saddam says he isn't. Should I believe the president of our country or a maniacal dictator with a history of aggression, atrocities and lying? Hmmm....
  • Reply 12 of 160
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    [quote]Originally posted by elo:

    <strong>I always find it interesting how quick some people are to distrust America or President Bush and yet have no problem giving the benefit of the doubt to Hans Blix and even Saddam Hussein! Who is more trustworthy? Bush or Saddam? Bush says Saddam is producing missiles and hiding wmd. Saddam says he isn't. Should I believe the president of our country or a maniacal dictator with a history of aggression, atrocities and lying? Hmmm....</strong><hr></blockquote>

    That's a good question, Bush or Saddam? hmm. I know I trust Blix a lot more than both of them.
  • Reply 13 of 160
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    I'd have to say neither Bush nor Saddam is any more trustworthy really.



    It's just Bush has a far greater potential for destruction, and is highly unlikely to use it while Saddam is far less dangerous, but much more likely to do something rash.



    Neither case makes either one more or less honest, but if you had to choose most sane individuals would see that Bush is the lesser of two evils.
  • Reply 14 of 160
    eloelo Posts: 22member
    And how is it that Blix is so trustworthy? Many seem eager to believe that Bush has hidden agendas and can't be trusted but apparently Blix is immune to such things. I don't trust Blix at all. He appears to be woefully inept at his job and his "reports" are ambiguous and incomplete. I imagine it's too much of a leap to think he could be a pawn of the pacifist UN. Oh no, not Blix. He's a moral pillar.



    "Neither Bush nor Saddam is any more trustworthy" ? This quote is truly sad. It's this type of thinking that really makes me worry about the people in this country and the world.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
  • Reply 14 of 160
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    I'd say Blix is fair game these days. People don't have a problem slagging Powell wherever convenient, nowdays. Funny thing is that a lot of antiwar people stood by Powell's even-handedness only a little while ago. Now that he gave his presentation which decidedly steps over to the pro-Iraq War side, he is eschewed by the same people all of a sudden. It appears that people tend to bolster someone not for the ideals/values/beliefs/credentials they hold, but simply if they are aligned with their agenda at a particular moment.



    Is it possible that Blix has lost his objectivity on the issue? Quite certainly. It's quite clear that he has chosen to filter his presentations to forward the agenda of "process". If he ever decided to not filter, it would be seen as a definite step to the "other side", and I'm sure that all of those people who look up to him now would suddenly eschew him just the same as they did with Powell. It is all agenda driven, not responsiveness to the information at hand.
  • Reply 16 of 160
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Some guy said that when the smearing campaign against the inspectors starts, then war is just around the corner. Guess he was right.
  • Reply 17 of 160
    bungebunge Posts: 7,329member
    [quote]Originally posted by elo:

    <strong>

    "Neither Bush nor Saddam is any more trustworthy" ? This quote is truly sad. It's this type of thinking that really makes me worry about the people in this country and the world. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    giant,



    Where are you when we need you? We've got another one here that doesn't believe that Bush is lying to us to start a war....
  • Reply 18 of 160
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    Is this really a smear campaign or just citations of objective inconsistency? When they pull out the child porn charges and pictures of Blix shaking hands and smiling with Saddam, that's when it smells like a smear campaign to me.
  • Reply 19 of 160
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>



    giant,



    Where are you when we need you? We've got another one here that doesn't believe that Bush is lying to us to start a war....</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, just another one. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />



    Everybody thinks they have the world on their side. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />



    [ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
  • Reply 20 of 160
    finboyfinboy Posts: 383member
    [quote]Originally posted by bunge:

    <strong>I'd have to say neither Bush nor Saddam is any more trustworthy really.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Then you are (1) lying, or (2) ignorant. Or you could be saying it for political reasons (see (2)).



    I'm tired of this stuff. You guys whine because you don't get better treatment here and then you post THIS!
Sign In or Register to comment.