Also, here’s another good quote for you. From an interview on March 17, 2004:
The problem with your assertion is that nobody is saying that “the UN was about to give Iraq a clean bill of health”. There is a lot of middle ground between “yes, with all certainty Saddam Hussein DOES have WMD” which is what Bush was saying and “No he doesn’t” which few if anybody said. The point is that most of the informed opinions were very qualified and middle of the road but were not enough to support an invasion. An invasion required certainty which Bush claimed and which did not exist.
Also, here’s another good quote for you. From an interview on March 17, 2004:
sailor: For the “clean bill of health,” I’m referring to Elvis’s post #154 in which he claims that the UN weapons inspectors were about to blow the lid off the “WMD lie.”
My point is that to blow the lid off Bush assertions that Saddam Hussein most certainly possessed WMD the UN did not need to say “he most certainly does not”, it was sufficient for them to say, “NO, we do not have that certainty”. Which is pretty much what they were saying all along.
This is like the burden of proof in a criminal trial, “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The defense does not need to prove the accused did not do it, it is sufficient to show the accusation has not been proven.
It was easier than finding Osama Bin Laden, and there was an election coming up.
While I agree with you that the burden of proof ought to have been on the Bush Administration to show that Iraq was a real, not just imagined, danger, Blix had been saying for about two months prior to the invasion that he was unable to come to any conclusion about whether or not the WMDs existed, as well as criticizing the intelligence he had been provided.
If we’re willing to say that the UN inspectors reporting inconclusive evidence on WMD and criticizing western intelligence as “blowing the lid off” of Bush claims, then I’m afraid all meaning of that phrase has been lost. That’s like saying that Fox News is going to run a special report blowing the lid off of the covered-up story that Obama is somewhat liberal.
Not exactly. He stated his inability to prove a negative. His meaning was clear enough, although not as clear as Baradei’s.
Nope. That was the primary reason Bush was peddling, and the primary reason those who supported the war offered for supporting it.
But the ordinary rules of proof didn’t apply. Confirming that the primary casus belli was not founded in fact would, in terms of public opinion, have blown the lid off the claim, and the remaining public support for Bush’s war would have collapsed.
The war *had *to be started while it still could be. Remember what we’re discussing here - *why *Bush lied us into war. The inspections were a threat to his plan.
May I suggest that you provide some cites for your statements?
Again, you keep offering the same unfounded claim that the UN weapons inspectors were on the verge of offering some finding that would dramatically change the situation. I have provided ample evidence that Hans Blix, in his own words, did not possess any substantially new information, and himself was unsure as of March 2003 whether or not there were WMD.
Again, if you want to make these claims, you ought to provide evidence to back them up, as I have provided evidence to debunk your theories.
May I suggest you use some reading skills?
Where the hell do you get that from? The same place you get this stuff about how one can too prove a negative?
Read Baradei’s report. They hadn’t found shit and would shortly be out of places to look. In a few months, tops, they *would *be out of places. Then there’d have to be an announcement and report.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. He had found quite a large amount of “new information”, along the lines of eliminating places where WMD’s could exist. That kind of information piles up to the point where the alternative possibility becomes unreasonable, does it not? The UN was almost there. They had to be prevented from getting the last bit of the way, so the last bit of the scare’s credibility could be preserved and the war rationalized.
Better bone up on this “proving a negative” concept.
My reading skills apparently do not extend to finding anything where Hans Blix said he can’t prove a negative. Either my eyes are bad or he never said such a thing. What would clear the problem up is a citation from you in which Hans Blix says that he cannot prove that Iraq had disarmed, or something similar.
I’m happy to provide multiple cites in which Blix says that, with sufficient time and cooperation, he would be able to determine whether Iraq has disarmed.
Seriously, Elvis, why is it taken as such an affront when I say that a few of your claims ought to be backed up with citations?
Because they’re already right in front of your face. :dubious:
Whatever. You have lots of opinions that you cannot back up with a coherent argument.
How anyone can read, for example, the Jim Leher interview and come away with the opinion that Blix was soon going to expose the Bush lie is just beyond me. Blix has stated many, many times that he personally was unsure of whether Iraq had WMD.
They too are right in front of your face. :dubious:
Come on now.
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml
UC Berkeley 18 March 2004
IMHO Blix was not decisive enough, and I do think that he had to deal with lots of pressure; but other sources I saw also pointed that in the last round of inspections, based on the latest “intelligence”, the inspectors could not confirm what the administration was saying. I do think that if someone had waited a few weeks even people people like Blix would have come with an even more critical assessment of the situation.
For an administration that was making the “facts” fit their preconceptions it was something that they could not allow, war needed to happen sooner rather than later.
Remember, too, that Blix is a diplomat and communicates like one. The quote you gave above (thanks) is about as direct a way as a diplomat will ever use to call someone a liar.
So, when Blix said that Bush and Blair did not act in “bad faith,” he actually means he thinks they did?
Geez, I work in foreign policy, and I’ve never heard diplo-speak THAT obtuse.
That’s right.
Think of a candidate in a debate saying “Now, I’m sure my opponent is an *honorable *man …”
Now that I look at what Blix said about Bush et al not acting in bad faith, but acting like fools, it seems that that is exactly what I have been arguing.
Thank goodness someone is here to explain that Blix doesn’t agree with what we both are saying!
Well, he was probably worried about making him mad.