I believe a lot of things Blix has said. "I feel Iraqi state has not fully accepted the need for disarmement" is one of them. Another is "I have seen no need for war". Yet another is "I have seen no reason to believe Iraqi agents are being paraded in place of scientists" as declared by Bush.
iht.com
In the interview Wednesday, Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin 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, he said, had he any reason to believe, as President George W. Bush charged in his State of the Union speech Tuesday, 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 Bush also mentioned in his speech.
.
"There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, 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 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.
Blix reiterated his report's key finding that Iraq had not provided anything like the wholehearted cooperation he needed to certify that Saddam was not concealing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. His concern about Iraq's attitude, he said, had led him to refrain from explicitly asking for more time for inspections when he reported to the Security Council on Monday.
-----------------------------
Evil and "not nice" isn't the same thing
They are equally simplistic designations suitable more for children who see the world in black/white terms and cannot handle more complex analyses of personalities, motivations, and strategy.
Saddam is a moral monster
You mean, like Pinochet, who was single-handedly responsible for the torture, death, and disappearance of thousands of Chileans after he came to power with massive support from the US?
I would not invite Saddam to my home and would not live under his rule. However, if you are waiting for "Oh so he's a monster? Let's invade Iraq, then" as a response to the imminent invasion of Iraq that will kill thousands of innocent people, to oust a guy the US happily supported in the past, who is not any more singularly egregious than most other dictators this planet suffered, some of which US supported, then you will be disappointed.
And you would think that would cause a reasonable person to give him less credence than Colin Powell or George Bush.
Why do you think we have to believe one or the other??? They are people in positions of power, who would like to keep those positions, and exploit them to the best interests of not only their country, but their own person, families, supporters, and corporate connections.
If I am to believe one of these sides, it will be with irrefutable evidence, not on the basis of some abstract judgement of who is more "moral" and who is more "evil". And it will definitely NOT be on two guys talking in Arabic (possibly in front of a mike in Pentagon) and satellite photos of some trucks (carrying who knows what). |
