Now, will there be a rush to go back and reread in detail every report Blix has issued to see if he hid anything else in the fine print? As bad as whatever Blix might uncover, was this just something he missed? Or was it deliberate?
The article seems pretty damning against objectivity:
No, I’m not changing my personal position opposing this war. This revelation just makes it more difficult to assess the reports, be it by Bush, and now Blix.
Of course, as we approach the midnight before the first missiles strike, more and more information may start to appear. As either side scrambles for public opinion, and to gather support for their side, anything is possible now. It happens too often, in crises, even in sports as one side goes to a full court press.
But now we have an “impartial” UN chief inspector appearing not to be. Yes, buring the data, only to have it exposed now only strengthens the Bush war footing. OK, I’ll deal with that. But it also begins to crack the credibility and objectivity of UN reporting and inspections; something that Bush can use to make the UN even more irrelevant.
I’ve come to expect member countries of the UN to play their political games, grand-standing and ego wanking. It’s part and parcel of politics and diplomacy. But we now now appear to have an “objective,” non-partisan employee of the UN at a very high level joining this game.
I think the slippery slope just got a spray of lubricant.