Blix: US was bent on war

Search

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
465
Tokens
Hans Blix accuses U.S. of "fabricating" evidence  12-04-2003 18:48

Nicholas Watt -- Saturday April 12, 2003 -- The Guardian

War against Iraq was a foregone conclusion months before the first shot was fired, the chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has claimed.

In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign.

Letting rip after months of frustration, he told the Spanish daily El Pais: "There is evidence that this war was planned well in advance. Sometimes this raises doubts about their attitude to the [weapons] inspections."

Mr Blix said Iraq was paying a "a very high price in terms of human lives and the destruction of a country" when the threat of banned weapons could have been contained by UN inspections.

The 74-year Swedish diplomat made clear that he believes he was misled by President Bush. At a White House meeting last October Mr Bush backed the work of Unmovic, the UN inspection team.

But at the time Mr Blix knew "there were people within the Bush administration who were sceptical and who were working on engineering regime change". By the start of March the hawks in Washington and London were growing impatient.

He said he believed that finding weapons of mass destruction had been relegated as an aim and the main objective had become the toppling of Saddam Hussein.

-=-=-=-=-=

a comment on this article sums things up quite well.

"I always felt he was a man of integrity. This statement proves he's a man of courage as well."
 
What a chief appeaser. Iraq was suppose to come clean and provide the weapons to the inspectors. The hide & seek game was over after 12 long years.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
232
Tokens
He's just pissed off because he failed. And of course war plans were made in advance...years in advance.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,497
Tokens
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a scathing attack on Britain and the US, Mr Blix accused them of planning the war "well in advance" and of "fabricating" evidence against Iraq to justify their campaign. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea whether Blix is right or wrong, but if you don't at least hear him out, you are sticking your head in the sand.

There was way too much at stake politically and economically in this war to make a 100% blanket statment that a US administration would not do these things.

The US government (ran by either party) has lied far more about far less in the past. I'm sure some people thought Nixon was a stand-up guy, too.

Politics are dirty.
 
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,299
Tokens
I've read this from other sources--namely, a quote from Gen. Franks-- and Iraq was stated as Bush's proverbial hard on for some time, supposedly in March 2001 it was known among some in Washington that this war would happen no matter what.

It has been a big lie but, personal thoughts regarding Blix aside, Bush has done a disservice to the American People by not showing his true intentions in the realm of foreign policy.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
465
Tokens
debate between Richard Perle (a key advisor behind the war) and the EP's Green Party leader, in last month's Foreign Policy. Don't know when exactly the debate was, but before 22 March:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Cohn-Bendit: With Iraq, you are talking about nation building. Yet we have not finished our job in Afghanistan. We see a backlash against women and deteriorating security. We have barely secured the capital, Kabul. It is my biggest fear that Afghan warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar will take over Kabul while you are fighting in Iraq. After the war, you will neglect Iraq and shift your attention to Syria, then Saudi Arabia. Because you are Americans, you have the biggest army in the world—you can do anything you want. This is revolutionary hubris.

Perle: I do not know that this is any American official’s view.

Cohn-Bendit: Don’t say that. After the war in Iraq, you will adopt this view. Syria is financing the Hamas terrorist organization, right?

Perle: Yes, and Syria is not alone. But I think we will have a very good opportunity to persuade Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism. I promise we will be more effective in that if we remove Hussein, rather than crawling back from where we are today, throwing up our hands, and saying, “It’s too hard. We couldn’t do it, we had too little support.” Would you rather talk with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad about terrorism before or after the liberation of Iraq?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_mayjune_2003/debate.html
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
5,398
Tokens
Just a thought: if the US-Iraq situation were somehow transposed over to the corporate world, the entire universe left and right would be screaming that "US Inc." had too much of a conflict of interest in looking for the "smoking gun" WMD and terror links in the wake of the war, considering how badly this is needed to justify the war in the first place.

While I am thoroughly opposed to the UN existing, let alone interfering in American affairs, can anyone take any "finds" by the US from this point seriously? I mean, it's sort of a no-brainer they're going to find something, like the cop who throws down a dime bag to justify a search and seizure ...


Just a thought.


Phaedrus
 
Hans Blix's is obviously pissed that the U.S. cut short his 10 seconds of fame in half. I understand you conspiracy theorists need to jump on just about any pathetic angle, but this one just proves your blinding hatred for all things Bush. Be patient guys, conspiracy myths are a dime a dozen. Wait for a GOOD one. I know things have dried up since the Iraqi Info Minister has disappeared. But there's always the gospel truth espoused daily from your bible "TheOnion". By the way, word is, is that our buddy the Info Minister was recently seen in Texas with "W" for the Easter holiday. Not sure what that means. I'll let you guys--the experts in these matters--take it from there. And please, you didn't hear it from me.
icon_wink.gif
 
Blix:

He's pissed off because there were probably NO WMD's in IRAQ.

He's pissed because Washington used the UN under the pretext of looking for WMD's to get rid of Saddam.

If Saddam had WMD's they would have been used to stop the advance into Baghdad.
 

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Messages
2,509
Tokens
Exactly Joey. If he had them, he would have used them. I think even the war supporters now realize that there never were any WMD's. It was just used as an excuse.

Something tells me the war supporters will be talking more and more about Liberation or whatever excuse they chose to use next.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,119,149
Messages
13,564,584
Members
100,752
Latest member
gamebet888host
The RX is the sports betting industry's leading information portal for bonuses, picks, and sportsbook reviews. Find the best deals offered by a sportsbook in your state and browse our free picks section.FacebookTwitterInstagramContact Usforum@therx.com