Iran and WMD - does this sound familiar?

[John_Mace]

@wring

No, because we don’t like what he did in Iraq and because he has a track record of being less than completely honest wrt his actions and motivations, we’re not going to start cheering him on unless and until the other shoe (bomb) has dropped.

Meh. I didn’t say anything about cheering him on. I just don’t know why anyone would brag about diving into an issue with his mind alreay made up. We all know Bush fucked up in Iraq. Tell us something new.

[Wildfire_MM]

@DrDeth

Read the cite.

Heres’ more:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2002-12-19-blix-iraqreport_x.htm
"Blix noted inconsistencies in Iraq’s biological declaration, noting that the latest report did not include a table that had been provided in 1999 on Baghdad’s purchase of material that it used to grow biological warfare agents including anthrax.

This omission “needs to be explained,” Blix told the council, according to his briefing notes.

Also, he said Iraq was using chemical equipment destroyed by inspectors before they left in December 1998 and was developing a missile known as the Al Samoud with a range, in 13 flight tests, that exceeded the range permitted under U.N. resolutions.

ElBaradei said Iraq needed to provide answers and evidence regarding Iraq’s recent purchase of aluminum tubes. The top U.N. nuclear inspector also found little new in the 12,000-page declaration. "

Incidentally, the Al Samoud missles were found, and were illegal. Whetehr or not the missles themslves are “WMD” is a matter of differing definition, and they were more the carrier for MWD. However, even if one decides Al Samoud missles weren’t WMD, they were still illegal.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/16/103624.shtml
"BRUSSELS, Belgium – U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said today that *Iraq had clearly violated a U.N. arms ban * by importing illegal material that could be used to build nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Speaking after briefing senior EU officials, Blix said: “We have found things that have been illegally imported, even in 2001 and 2002. The question of whether they relate to weapons of mass destruction requires further inspection.”

Blix, due to brief French President Jacques Chirac and British premier Tony Blair Friday before traveling to Baghdad, said the message he was taking to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was that the situation is “very tense and very dangerous.”

On the eve of the 12th anniversary of the Gulf War that drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait, the United States has sent more than 100,000 troops to the region and Washington has made it abundantly clear it intends to use them if Baghdad does not comply with U.N. calls to disarm.

Blix said patience with Iraq was running out and that the oil-rich country had to decide whether to cooperate more proactively with weapons inspectors or face the threat of a U.S.-led war.

“We feel Iraq must do more than it has so far in order to make inspections a credible avenue. The other major avenue is in the form of armed action against Iraq,” he said. “We are trying our best to make inspections effective so we can have a peaceful solution.”"

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030215/main1.htm
"United Nations, February 14
UN weapons inspectors have not found any arms of mass destruction in Iraq, but UN chief inspector Hans Blix said many forbidden materials remain unaccounted for.

Inspectors have “not found any such weapons, only a small number of empty chemical munitions, which should have been declared and destroyed,” Blix said.

“Another matter and one of great significance is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. One must not jump to the conclusion that they exist. However, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction.” If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented, he said.

Blix also reported findings by a panel of experts that one of Iraq’s new missile systems exceeded the range limit set by the UN Security Council resolutions. “The experts concluded that, based on the data provided by Iraq, the two declared variants of the Al Samoud 2 missile were capable of exceeding 150 km in range. This missile system is therefore proscribed for Iraq,” Blix said. "

Note that as Blix got further and further into his Inspections, he clearly started to doubt material amounts of WMD more and more. And, I agree Blix shoudl have been given more time. But when Blix first went in, he clearly thought he’d find something, and had clearly stated Iraq was in violation.

…

Blix’s statements about the Iraq WMD program came to contradict the claims of the Bush administration, [6] and attracted a great deal of criticism from supporters of the invasion of Iraq. In an interview on BBC TV on 8 February 2004, Dr. Blix accused the U.S. and British governments of dramatising the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, in order to strengthen the case for the 2003 war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Blix

I clearly remember Blix saying that he found no “smoking gun” in Iraq

[wring]

@John Mace

Meh. I didn’t say anything about cheering him on. I just don’t know why anyone would brag about diving into an issue with his mind alreay made up. We all know Bush fucked up in Iraq. Tell us something new.

No, but you were responding to the post that included this:

As it is, I can understand why people are almost apocalyptically wary of anything the executive branch says right now

. Far be it from “getting pissed at (BUsh) when he does something right”, the poster in question is suggesting that folks, even if Bush happens to be doing something they agree w/, are (IMHO) correctly mistrustful of the intent, follow through, motives etc.

[nameless]

@John Mace

Meh. I didn’t say anything about cheering him on. I just don’t know why anyone would brag about diving into an issue with his mind alreay made up. We all know Bush fucked up in Iraq. Tell us something new.

Yeah, hey! I didn’t brag about anything! All’s I’m saying is that I understand the distrust. In fact, I’m not inclined to accept the administration’s pronouncements and motivations at face value. Is that so absurd after what the nation’s been through WRT Iraq? If Bush has learned something from the Iraq war–and I hope to God he has–then great. It’s a bit late for him to salvage his presidency IMO, but I’m not complaining about the handling of the Iran situation thus far. Sorry if I was unclear.

[DrDeth]

@Wildfire**MM

…

Blix - Wikipedia

I clearly remember Blix saying that he found no “smoking gun” in Iraq

Indeed, he didn’t- as far as actual WMD’s. But going in, he had strong suspicions.

[Zoe]

John Mace: We all know Bush fucked up in Iraq. Tell us something new.

We would love to report something new about Iraq, but there is apparently firm resolve in the fucking up.

[Tuckerfan]

@Wildfire**MM

…

Blix - Wikipedia

I clearly remember Blix saying that he found no “smoking gun” in Iraq

Hey, thanks for quoting that huge block and only inserting that little bit there on the end.

[RedFury]

@John Mace

So, because you don’t like what he did in Iraq you’re going to get pissed at him even when he does something right. Yeah, that makes sense.

Try reading the OP again. They are fuckin’ lying to make a case to strike Iran palatable to the American public.

You call that “doing something right”?

[RickJay]

@DrDeth

Indeed, he didn’t- as far as actual WMD’s. But going in, he had strong suspicions.

Well, that certainly justifies killing ten or twenty thousand people.

How many must die in Iran?

[Tuckerfan]

@RickJay

Well, that certainly justifies killing ten or twenty thousand people.

How many must die in Iran?

Well, Iran’s got about 3 times the population of Iraq, so. . .

[Wildfire_MM]

@Tuckerfan

Hey, thanks for quoting that huge block and only inserting that little bit there on the end.

you’re welcome

[EddyTeddyFreddy]

@Wildfire**MM

you’re welcome

Too bad you’re not.

[DrDeth]

@RickJay

Well, that certainly justifies killing ten or twenty thousand people.

How many must die in Iran?

No, it didn’t. It did justify the USA threatening force if SaddamH didn’t give Blix and co full access. But once Blix got in and was doing his thing, the actual invasion was not justified.

[John_Mace]

@RedFury

Try reading the OP again. They are fuckin’ lying to make a case to strike Iran palatable to the American public.

In my first post here I said it was disturbing, and I think that’s about where I’ll leave it until we get more information. Note that the complaint is that the administration “implied” that uranium enrichment had gone further than the guy at the IAEA thought was correct. Without seeing the actual report, it’s hard to say how much of “lie” that is. Also, I don’t see any indication that Bush wants to “strike” Iran, and there are lots of reasons why he wouldn’t want to (some of them being spelled I-R-A-Q). At this point, all the administration is pushing for is sanctions.

You call that “doing something right”?

I think that overall the administration has handled the Iran situation about as well as can be expected. No, I don’t agree with every detail of every action, but I doubt that another president would have done much differently. For instance, if I were Bush I would seriously consider renewing diplomatic relations with Iran, but that might not be political possible for any president to do.