Blix challenges Bushs statements

Proteus_MST · January 31, 2003, 21:29

Chiefinspector Hans Blix challenged several Assertions which were given by George W. Bush during his speech.

Blix dispelled any impressions, that his report supports the notion of the US-government to start a war on Saddam Hussein.

He also said, that several statements of George W. Bush in his Speech were false.

He said, it was false (as claimed by Powell) that the Inspectors reported several incidents, where Iraqi officials tried to hide and move illicit materials to prevent their discovery.

Also there hasn´t been convincing evidence, that Iraqui agents were posing as scientists or that Irqui scientists had been sent to Jordan, Syria and other country, to prevent them from being interviewed, as it was mentioned by Bush during his speech.

He also added, that he had no evidence, that the Inspector-Teams had been leaked by Iraqui agents and also no evidence, that there are strong Links between Iraq and Al Quaeda.
Blix said, there are several other countries, which had stronger Links to this Terrorist Organization.

He also challenged Bushs argument, that war is necessary to prevent an attack like Sepember 11 and said, that the world is safer now than it was at the times of cold war, where USA ansd USSR threatened each other with much more Stockpiles of WMDs.

At last he said, that war is not his choice of action and that, if there should be war, it has to be decided by the security council, but he would rather choose disarmament by peaceful mneans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/in...st/31BLIX.html

I believe, George Bush has just lost a large part of his reliability.
Maybe he can gain a little of it again, if Powell shows very strong evidence of WMDs in Iraq.

Time will tell

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 21:35

Quote:

no evidence, that there are strong Links between Iraq and Al Quaeda.

How would he know given the fact that area isn't within his purview or expertise?

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 21:43

Good point, Dino....however, the goings on in Iraq ARE clearly in the purview of his expertise (that being his reason for bein' over there). I'm inclined to believe him.

-=Vel=-

cavebear · January 31, 2003, 21:45

I wonder if President Bush realizes how many Americans are looking to Secretary of State Colin Powell for rational leadership on the Iraqi matter?

As I talk to friends and co-workers (left, right, and center), Powell is the one that most people seem to agree is taking the right approaches. And he seems to be taking positions in spite of Bush rather than taking them as part of a "good cop, bad cop" game.

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 21:47

Let's face it....we need a regieme change.

I predict we'll get one in the next election.

-=Vel=-

(EDIT: Yes....even if Fez were to run for President)

Gatekeeper · January 31, 2003, 21:47

Powell for PRESIDENT!!! (Too bad it'll never happen.)

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm inclined to believe him.

Then perhaps you can give me a good idea how someone who obviously isn't able to drag a complete weapons declaration out of Iraq can find out about information that would be even more closely guarded than the location of the nearest ton of VX.

Gatekeeper · January 31, 2003, 21:48

I'd settle for McCain, though.

Velociryx · January 31, 2003, 21:50

Dino....I'm saying that his information has GOT TO BE, by default, better than the Shrub's. He is on the ground in Iraq, not thousands of miles away in the oval office. (by the time the Shrub gets his information, it's six, seven generations old, at a minimum).

First rule of good governance is to trust your experts. Listen to what they're telling you.

This guy's name was not just pulled out of someone's arse, he was hand-picked to go over there and snoop.

If anybody has a good idea of what's going on over there, my money would be on Blix and his team.

-=Vel=-

cavebear · January 31, 2003, 21:53

When a majority of Americans are demanding "evidence", can anyone blame those in other countries for expecting the same?

As I see it, there are 3 reasons to take action against Saddam Hussein.

1. Invading neighboring countries.
2. Possessing WMD's.
3. Inhumane actions toward his citizenry.

Any of the 3 are sufficient for UN action. The UN represents the world's peacekeeping and liberating intentions. Personally, I'd take out Saddam fior any of the 3 with UN agreement..

The problem is that Bush keeps switching from one reason to another, and the UN is too weak in will to do what it ought for *any* of the reasons.

Lack of focus plus lack of will is not a good equation for success.

monkspider · January 31, 2003, 21:57

Unfortunately these frequently debunked myths will continue to be spread through the popular press.

Dauphin · January 31, 2003, 21:58

cavebear, the US falls into all those categories.

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 21:59

Quote:

Originally posted by cavebear
When a majority of Americans are demanding "evidence", can anyone blame those in other countries for expecting the same?

Allowing the burden of proof to shift from Iraq seems to be one of the biggest mistakes of the administration.

Dauphin · January 31, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Allowing the burden of proof to shift from Iraq seems to be one of the biggest mistakes of the administration.

Its impossible to prove a negative.

Prove to me you are not a terrorist.

Immortal Wombat · January 31, 2003, 22:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Its impossible to prove a negative.

prove it

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 22:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Its impossible to prove a negative.

Is it really so much to ask that Iraq provide a verifiable accounting of the weapons we already know about and that they follow the example laid down by South Africa when it comes to cooperation with inspectors?

Ned · January 31, 2003, 22:23

So, Blix has be granted access to US intelligence, has he?

Demerzel · January 31, 2003, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
cavebear, the US falls into all those categories.

quality and so true...

Cavebear, I think most people don't have a problem with going to war with Iraq if there is a good reason backed up by evidence. They just don't want to go to war with Iraq cos dubya wants it and when he can't make up his mind what excuse he'll use and keeps changing it, it doesn't help his case.

Unless the release all this secret intelligence they claim to possess, they are going to see their case weaken and weaken to the point where dubya might be forced to go to war unilaterally.

Gatekeeper · February 1, 2003, 00:53

I want to see more evidence as well, but you have to admit something: If a lot of what they're getting is from genuine HUMINT (Human Intelligence) from moles in the Baghdad regime, and they go public with it all the time, how long would it take for Saddam to hunt down and drown the moles? And wouldn't other would-be moles see what happened to their predecessors and therefore clam up, thereby denying the U.S. and other Western countries key intelligence?

Human intel is the *best* you can get, folks. Better than satellite. Better than any expert's hunches, logical or not. And better than inspectors, who apparently don't have the balls to fully implement the latest U.N. resolution. When it comes to human intel, you can't just use it carelessly and expect the pool to replenish itself, because it won't.

Maybe I'm just playing the devil's advocate here, but I don't think we, as the armchair generals, can just be oblivious to what I said above.

Gatekeeper

Capt Dizle · February 1, 2003, 01:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Velociryx
Dino....I'm saying that his information has GOT TO BE, by default, better than the Shrub's. He is on the ground in Iraq, not thousands of miles away in the oval office. (by the time the Shrub gets his information, it's six, seven generations old, at a minimum).

First rule of good governance is to trust your experts. Listen to what they're telling you.

This guy's name was not just pulled out of someone's arse, he was hand-picked to go over there and snoop.

If anybody has a good idea of what's going on over there, my money would be on Blix and his team.

-=Vel=-

Now Vel, you have to be kidding me. Are you really taking the position that the Blix has better info than the combined efforts of US and allied intelligence agencies?

Do you really believe that with all the money we are willing to throw around that we have absolutely no covert assets in Bagdad?

Do you really believe that we get no useful information from neighboring governments on Iraqi activities?

Do you really think that Blix has be fully briefed by our intelligence community to the extent that he can put what he sees in the proper context?

Do you really think that Blix sees anything of substance that Saddam doesn't want him to see?

When will we get a demo of Candy's Bra?

jt

Sava · February 1, 2003, 01:18

Quote:

Do you really believe that with all the money we are willing to throw around that we have absolutely no covert assets in Bagdad?

Yeah, a bunch of Texas white boys dressed in desert Arab attire speaking poor Arabic stopping people on the street saying, "So seen any nukes today?"

Either that or they're paying some so called Iraqi defector that tells them outlandish stories about Saddam and his alien equipment...

I think 9-11 proved that the US intelligence (oxymoron) is grossly inept. And if Bush is making decisions based on bad intelligence... well... I wouldn't want to be living in Baghdad the next few weeks.

Capt Dizle · February 1, 2003, 01:20

One of the great unspoken reasons for invading Iraq is to establish deterrent. In the light of the 9/11 attacks I think that the Bush team, as they had a right to be, were greatly concerned that a lack of strong response would be interpreted by the heads of foreign governments that they could get away with sponsoring direct terrorists attacks on American interests.

Taking out Saddam sends a clear message that America will not sit idly by should goverment sponsored terrorism be directed against us. Maybe Saddam is simply being used as an object lesson.

Geopolitics like beer is best served cold.

Capt Dizle · February 1, 2003, 01:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava

Yeah, a bunch of Texas white boys dressed in desert Arab attire speaking poor Arabic stopping people on the street saying, "So seen any nukes today?"

Either that or they're paying some so called Iraqi defector that tells them outlandish stories about Saddam and his alien equipment...

I think 9-11 proved that the US intelligence (oxymoron) is grossly inept. And if Bush is making decisions based on bad intelligence... well... I wouldn't want to be living in Baghdad the next few weeks.

I disagree that Us intel is inept. We had more than enough info. The thing you may not understand about America, Sava, is that a capitalist democracy has tremendous inertia. It is our greatest weakness and perhaps the thing that will do us in over the long term.

Absent an event like 9/11, it would not have been politically possible for any administration to implement the kinds of safeguards that are needed to protect us against this sort of attack.

You should realize that we routinely have intel on many threats and only a finite amount of resources to deal with them. The 9/11 event has increase our resources, including intel.

There is no question in my mind that our intelligence has a great deal more on the ball than your viewpoint indicates.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 01:29

It's so sad to see our leaders playing right into the hands of Osama bin Laden jimmytrick. What do you think bin Laden wants? He wants the US to attack an Arab country in retribution for 9-11. OBL's goal is to start a holy war. And Bush is apparantly ready to give him that.

And that's F'ed reasoning if I ever heard it. Let's attack a country because somebody else commited a terrorist attack against us. The only lesson that will teach the world is that America is no better than Nazi Germany. Committing a pre-emptive military action is wrong. Period. There's a line between good and evil, and Bush is about to cross it.

And whether or not the conspiracy theorists and paranoid right wingers in the government might think about Iraq's alleged terror connections, Iraq is innocent until proven guilty. Bombing Baghdad won't do a damn thing to protect this country from a terror attack. In fact, it will probably just make a billion Muslims hate us much more than they do now.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 01:31

Quote:

There is no question in my mind that our intelligence has a great deal more on the ball than your viewpoint indicates.

History has and continues to point to the contrary.

Capt Dizle · February 1, 2003, 01:56

Take a look at this link folks:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/867105.asp...A01&cp1=1#BODY

Sava, we just disagree. We could duel and add to the bloodshed but I am old and it would be my blood so I'll just leave it at words.

Sava · February 1, 2003, 02:02

I'd like nothing more to be proven wrong, believe me. I'm not against going to war if Saddam is hiding things. My point is simply that the Bush administration has not presented evidence supporting it's point. And while a lot of other Americans can be content with just trusting them to do the right thing, I'm skepticle, and simply exercising my democratic right to hold my government responsible. And right or wrong, it's an American duty to not only participate in government, but keep it in check by holding it accountable.

And for the record, I think that the airlines and transportation boards need to be blamed for 9-11 more than the intelligence community. Intelligence is a tough business and you can't always get concrete facts to stand on. Lack of security was the cause of 9-11. And what's sad is that even with all the airport security increases, the methods the terrorists used to get on board those planes would still work today. But whether or not you agree with me on that, let's stay on topic

.

Urban Ranger · February 1, 2003, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Now Vel, you have to be kidding me. Are you really taking the position that the Blix has better info than the combined efforts of US and allied intelligence agencies?

Do you really believe that with all the money we are willing to throw around that we have absolutely no covert assets in Bagdad?

Okay, suppose the US has some spies in Iraq. Turned Iraqi IOs, say. How in the world can you tell they aren't lying? They can even be double agents, there's no way you can tell.

Iraqis seem to hate the US with a passion, so it is kinda hard to get any sort of human intelligence at all.

Velociryx · February 1, 2003, 07:56

I am of the opinion that our intellegence apparatus has proved itself to be less-than-reliable in this region.

Blix's specific purpose for being sent into Iraq was to inspect and detect weapons of mass destruction. If we don't listen to what the man says, then why did we bother to send him over? Coulda left him at home if we weren't gonna put any stock in what he tells us, and from what I'm hearing from the Shrub, he's taking Blix's report and putting his own spin on it (ie - slanting it to suit his purposes). That's not the same as *listening* to the hand-picked guy sent there for the purpose stated above.

Sure, we've got intel assets over there, and once in a while, they do us a spot of good.

But not lately. If our intel was as good as the US government would like us to believe, I contend that we would not be rebuilding the WTC.

But no....I'm definitely not saying that Blix has more sum total information about Iraq than the combined weight of our Intel...only that, when it comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction, he's our self-appointed front man. He IS one of our intel assets.

And we oughtta take his findings seriously.

-=Vel=-

PS: Candle'Bre is REALLY starting to come together! We're on Alpha 20 right now, and if I had to guess, I'd say that Alphaa 21 will prolly be our last....after that, it'll be known as Beta 1....

-V.

uh Clem · February 1, 2003, 08:57

The intelligence is of no value if its interpretation is politically biased. Bush and Rummy haven't liked what they've been getting from the CIA, so they've told them to go back and get more acceptable results. And gosh darn, they'll probably manage to do that, finding something that was "overlooked" earlier.