The Crocs here, have marshmallows for teeth and no sense of smell and are blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other. Facts are real teeth. Thought is worthless if you can’t smell your prey or see it. Grow some teeth.
It will take your explanation as to why these two statements are not true, or factual or not reflective of Blix’s point of view on his work just prior to the war before I concern myself with your having any credibility with the line of attack which started when you popped in to my discussion with Adaher and told me that my statement was all wrong.
“Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”… and … “Blix clearly states that Iraq is fully cooperating, that he expects the remaining issues can be resolved in a matter of a few months, and that the continued presence of the UN team will prevent Saddam from resuming prohibited programs.”
Or perhaps you could explain why you attacked my point to Adaher in the first place as some kind of fallacy.
I am one of the few posters here that believed in September/ October 2002 and continues to believe that Bush, and Democrats and Republicans alike sitting in Congress were correct to vote in favor of granting Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq because at that moment in time Iraq was in violation of international law because of it’s failure to be disarmed and because there were no inspectors inside Iraq working on that disarmament process.
I believed confronting Iraq was the correct course for Bush to take because of the uncertainty revolving around the potential for Iraq to have chemical or biological weapons and they could be used. I was not concerned about the nuclear issue.
I recall that you have mentioned that you supported the war at the start but have since turned against it. I take it that means you possibly supported the vote to use force as I did.
So our differences must revolve around the role of inspections as I see it.
I supported the vote to use force fully with the understanding that I had seen a change in Bush’s war actions in September 2002 when he put Colin Powell as the face of the pending confrontation against Iraq. When in December the inspections began and it looked like we had the opportunity for peaceful disarmament as I watched deeper into January seeing that inspections were working but there was no back down in the drumbeat in favor of war.
I marched in protest in DC hoping that the mindless talk of necessity of war would be curtailed. By Late February 2003, a range of polls showed American support fading as the inspectors continued to find nothing. One CBS poll said six of ten Americans prefer that Bush allow inspections to continue instead of starting a war.
So I am one who believed in the first days of March that Bush should have been held to his word that he wanted to disarm Iraq peacefully and avoid war. You apparently believed something else at that time.
Perhaps you believed Bush when he said Iraq was not cooperating and was indeed hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised. I didn’t.
But whenever it was that you decided that Bush was wrong to invade Iraq if that is what you believe, why do you have to be so opposed to what matters critically to me about that two week interval prior to the actual start of war?
I didn’t make something up about that, as Tony Sinclair’s cite has shown you.
What is the problem you have with this statement in the context that I was replying to Adaher whom I believe is terribly wrong to use things Blix said to enable Bush to lay out the claim that Iraq did not cooperate, and that he had no other choice but war.
What was so wrong with this. I really want to know.
“Blix’s professional recommendation was that unfettered inspections were working and SH was cooperating more than necessary to avert war”…
Blix had proactive cooperation weeks before the invasion. That is unfettered inspections and inspections were working.
Why would you attack me for saying it?
