Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (142386)	3/9/2014 2:55:26 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 149317

UN INSPECTORS FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF PROHIBITED WEAPONS PROGRAMMESAS OF 18 MARCH WITHDRAWAL, HANS BLIX TELLS SECURITY COUNCIL Says New Environment in Iraq, with Full Access and Cooperation, Should Allow Establishment of Truth about ‘Unaccounted for’ Items Up until they were withdrawn from Iraq on 18 March –- the day before armed action began -- United Nations inspectors had found no evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction, Hans Blix told the Security Council this morning, as he briefed them for a final time before stepping down at the end of June as head of the inspection team. un.org Mohamed El Baradei's report to the UN security council theguardian.com theguardian.com, Friday 14 February 2003 05.33 EST

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (142386)	3/9/2014 3:02:12 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 149317

>> I don't recall that. I will only believe that after I see that from the neutral UN observers. Have you read Hans Blix's book? I have. But you don't have to: But he publicly stated it to Christine Amanpour during an interview at Berkeley in 2004: "I'm not here to have gut feelings, but yes, in December 2002 I thought Saddam had weapons of mass destruction." iaea.org That's not to say he believed the war should have been conducted, as he clearly didn't. But Blix didn't comprehend that the world doesn't revolve around US Weapons inspectors. When you are having to build up to go to war, there has to be a time after which the commitment has been made. In particular, there were as I've pointed out, other excellent reasons to remove Saddam. And in fact the big mistake was not that there were no WMDs, but in going for the dumbed down version of why we need to take him out to begin with. After Bush heard it was a "slam dunk", he gravitated toward focusing on that because it was a relatively easy message while the other reasons involved thoughtful nuance that would be difficult to convey to the American people. He should have gotten the messaging right and the absence of WMDs wouldn't have made any difference. But he had been advised there was no chance the WMDs wouldn't be found.