Vindicated Blix Returns To U.s.
Eviscerator
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2003-02-24 Member: 13946Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Oh how sweet it is.</div> It just keeps getting better. The new administration in Spain threatens to pull out of Iraq if the U.S. does not relinquish political control to the U.N., and says the occupation in Iraq is a continuing "disaster." Now Hans Blix has returned:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Vindicated Blix returns to U.S.
Former weapons inspector receives hero's welcome
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 7:37 AM EST (1237 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have lost credibility, the world is not safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power and it was clear 10 months ago that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to Hans Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector who returned to New York on the one-year anniversary of the war.
Blix, who was often vilified by supporters and opponents of an invasion in the run-up to the Iraq war, left his post at the United Nations last June at a time when many held out hope that biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons could be found by U.S. troops in Iraq.
But dozens of search teams over the last year have came up empty handed and much of the initial resources devoted to the hunt have since been reallocated.
In an address Monday at New York University, Blix said the United States should have known months ago that there were no weapons to be found.
"By May I knew there was nothing because the Americans had interrogated so many Iraqis by then and even offered money and still they found nothing."
On a speaking tour for his new book "Disarming Iraq," Blix offered some tough assessments of American accomplishments in Iraq and suggested that the United States was motivated to go to war because of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
"It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything," he said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.
And he disagreed that the war had made the world a safer place.
"Sorry to say it doesn't look that way. If the message was to terrorists that we are willing to take you on, then that has not succeeded. In Iraq, it has bred a lot of terrorism and a lot of hatred to the Western world," he told an audience of 1,200 at NYU.
"Disarmament by war and democracy by occupation are difficult prospects."
He was especially critical of the United States and Britain for claiming the war was meant to uphold U.N. resolutions when the rest of the Security Council refused to back the conflict and he said Bush and Blair "oversold" what they knew.
"The moral of this story was clearly a loss of credibility for the leaders of this war and that they didn't think the council mattered, that was a mistake," Blix said.
Referring to passages from his book, the 75-year-old Swede identified Vice President **** Cheney as his No. 1 opponent inside the Bush administration.
In a meeting with Mr. Cheney in October 2002, Blix said he was told the United States 'was ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament,' unless Blix's teams were able to find weapons the White House insisted were in Iraq.
Blix's return to the United States, after nine months in Sweden working on the book, was triumphant compared to his quiet departure last June, which was marred by a U.S. refusal to let his inspectors back into Iraq.
Blix spent Monday appearing on TV talk shows and signing copies of his book, which came out this week in the United States.
At NYU, he was introduced by faculty members as a "real-life hero," "unbiased and critical," and his comments drew rounds of thunderous applause during his two hour appearance.
It was a striking contrast to the contentious appearances he made in the U.N. Security Council in the months leading up to the war. At that time, he was often criticized as pro-Iraqi or anti-American because his teams were coming up empty and refusing to blame Saddam for their failures.
Blix said he had been convinced for years that the Iraqis were hiding weapons of mass destruction but began having doubts when intelligence provided by the United States and other countries wasn't producing results. He blamed an over-reliance on defectors and a refusal on the part of the White House to consider the possibility that the intelligence was wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some key points I'd like to point out. Terrorism has not stopped. The world is not a better place. There was no threat in Iraq. Violence does NOT bring about an end to terrorism, it only makes it worse. The Bush administration will do anything to lie to and misinform the American public.
Don't like what you see happening in the world, particularly in what the U.S. is doing? Then <a href='https://www.workingforchange.com/vote/index.cfm?ms=GOO001' target='_blank'>register to vote</a> and make sure you visit the polls in November! We can stop these madmen in our country. If you do not vote you have no right to complain. Unless, of course, you're too young to vote. We must remove the evil Bush clan!
P.S. I like how the censor machine here bleeps out the short name for Richard... you can't type **** Cheney.
<img src='http://home.earthlink.net/~tmatthews3/images/iraq_explained.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Vindicated Blix returns to U.S.
Former weapons inspector receives hero's welcome
Tuesday, March 16, 2004 Posted: 7:37 AM EST (1237 GMT)
NEW YORK (AP) -- President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair have lost credibility, the world is not safer now that Saddam Hussein is out of power and it was clear 10 months ago that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to Hans Blix, the former U.N. weapons inspector who returned to New York on the one-year anniversary of the war.
Blix, who was often vilified by supporters and opponents of an invasion in the run-up to the Iraq war, left his post at the United Nations last June at a time when many held out hope that biological, chemical or even nuclear weapons could be found by U.S. troops in Iraq.
But dozens of search teams over the last year have came up empty handed and much of the initial resources devoted to the hunt have since been reallocated.
In an address Monday at New York University, Blix said the United States should have known months ago that there were no weapons to be found.
"By May I knew there was nothing because the Americans had interrogated so many Iraqis by then and even offered money and still they found nothing."
On a speaking tour for his new book "Disarming Iraq," Blix offered some tough assessments of American accomplishments in Iraq and suggested that the United States was motivated to go to war because of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
"It was a reaction to 9/11 that we have to strike some theoretical, hypothetical links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorists. That was wrong. There wasn't anything," he said in an interview with NBC's "Today" show.
And he disagreed that the war had made the world a safer place.
"Sorry to say it doesn't look that way. If the message was to terrorists that we are willing to take you on, then that has not succeeded. In Iraq, it has bred a lot of terrorism and a lot of hatred to the Western world," he told an audience of 1,200 at NYU.
"Disarmament by war and democracy by occupation are difficult prospects."
He was especially critical of the United States and Britain for claiming the war was meant to uphold U.N. resolutions when the rest of the Security Council refused to back the conflict and he said Bush and Blair "oversold" what they knew.
"The moral of this story was clearly a loss of credibility for the leaders of this war and that they didn't think the council mattered, that was a mistake," Blix said.
Referring to passages from his book, the 75-year-old Swede identified Vice President **** Cheney as his No. 1 opponent inside the Bush administration.
In a meeting with Mr. Cheney in October 2002, Blix said he was told the United States 'was ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament,' unless Blix's teams were able to find weapons the White House insisted were in Iraq.
Blix's return to the United States, after nine months in Sweden working on the book, was triumphant compared to his quiet departure last June, which was marred by a U.S. refusal to let his inspectors back into Iraq.
Blix spent Monday appearing on TV talk shows and signing copies of his book, which came out this week in the United States.
At NYU, he was introduced by faculty members as a "real-life hero," "unbiased and critical," and his comments drew rounds of thunderous applause during his two hour appearance.
It was a striking contrast to the contentious appearances he made in the U.N. Security Council in the months leading up to the war. At that time, he was often criticized as pro-Iraqi or anti-American because his teams were coming up empty and refusing to blame Saddam for their failures.
Blix said he had been convinced for years that the Iraqis were hiding weapons of mass destruction but began having doubts when intelligence provided by the United States and other countries wasn't producing results. He blamed an over-reliance on defectors and a refusal on the part of the White House to consider the possibility that the intelligence was wrong.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Some key points I'd like to point out. Terrorism has not stopped. The world is not a better place. There was no threat in Iraq. Violence does NOT bring about an end to terrorism, it only makes it worse. The Bush administration will do anything to lie to and misinform the American public.
Don't like what you see happening in the world, particularly in what the U.S. is doing? Then <a href='https://www.workingforchange.com/vote/index.cfm?ms=GOO001' target='_blank'>register to vote</a> and make sure you visit the polls in November! We can stop these madmen in our country. If you do not vote you have no right to complain. Unless, of course, you're too young to vote. We must remove the evil Bush clan!
P.S. I like how the censor machine here bleeps out the short name for Richard... you can't type **** Cheney.
<img src='http://home.earthlink.net/~tmatthews3/images/iraq_explained.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
so basically, I can assume form you tone that this is not going to be a discussion?
Ok well maybe foriegn policy will take a while let's look at homeland policy, now Bush is aganist **** marriage, ok let's see Kerry is also against **** marriage, hmm ok let's see Bush supports the 2nd amendment, ok Kerry also supports the second amendment, but aha Kerry wants to raise taxes on the rich, oh goodie I hate those rich **** ok time to vote for Kerry.
Sorry but I don't think Kerry is really going to bring about any remarkable change, so many figures in goverment aren't going to be replaced come november, Colin Powel, Donald Rumsfield, etc. will all still be around, and like I said there is no way Kerry can completely abonden Iraq and Afghanistan at this point.
Ahhhh... But it is not a disaster. Things are actually going very well. Sure, there are still deaths, but things are nonetheless going quite well.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Some key points I'd like to point out. Terrorism has not stopped.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one said that it would stop after Iraq. This does not mean that once Iraq becomes more stable and a self-sustaining democracy that terrorrism will not be affected, it just means that no one in support of the war in Iraq has said once that it will stop terrorrism by itself as you are implying.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The world is not a better place.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd say it is a better place actually. So please, if you want to make this a "key point", tell us why the world is not a better place.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->There was no threat in Iraq.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No immediate or apparent threat, but the idea that Iraq could be a threat or supply those who are threats were the major reasons for the war.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Violence does NOT bring about an end to terrorism, it only makes it worse.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, and we all know that diplomacy works so well. Violence, or in this case war, can bring about peace and new beginnings. To maintain peace you must have the military might to prevent yourself and others from being conquered. It does not matter if you want peace, there will always be others that do not.
It's been a year since the war in Iraq was declared over. Just wait and see how much good this war will bring. Wait and see what peace and democracy in Iraq does for the rest of the world and the Middle East.
I am not a religious person, but I will invoke a biblical story. The world was not created in a single day. Do not expect everything to be done quickly. You must take your time to do things properly. Do not assume defeat with the first quarter just ending.
The war in Iraq was not a failure. It may not have been justified properly, there may have been bad decisions afterwards and there have been deaths... But that does not mean it was not justified and no one should expect everything to go perfectly and those who have died have not died in vain ( many have died unjustly though, but not the fault of the Bush administration ).
He does say he wants to work with the international community "more" and that cooperation with them is the only way to combat terrorrism ( he also thinks its a legal and police issue, which will never work and is remarkably stupid ).
Does he believe there was more cooperation with Clinton? I wouldn't say that had any real impact on terrorrism. On top of that, the Bush administration is and has been working with many other nations, including Britain.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I'll start with your first point and follow up on the rest when I get back from class. There's a difference between what Americans are told is happening in Iraq and what is REALLY happening in Iraq. Bush lied to you before, what makes you think he's not lying to you now? He is a <i>pathological</i> liar.
<a href='http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=476741§ion=news' target='_blank'> U.S. sees world safer after Iraq but world unsure</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"The world is a much unsafer place," said Ahmed Rashid, a Lahore-based Pakistani expert on al Qaeda and the Taliban.
"The Iraq war has distracted from the war against terror. It has created international disunity and public mistrust of governments at a time when greater cooperation was needed."
"Bush has created another terror base in Iraq and I can't see how the world is safer," said Saad Jawad, a political science professor at Baghdad University.
Gunaratna said the Iraq war had <b>increased</b> the worldwide risk of terrorism, partly by sparking resentment even among moderate Muslims. Their emotions were being exploited by extremist groups who had regained strength.
Alani and Gunaratna both predicted <b>more attacks in Europe</b>, after the dramatic political impact of the Madrid bombings, with nations providing troops to Iraq the most likely targets.
"The experience is going to be repeated in other European capitals," Alani said. "These attacks are simple to organise."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This one I like most of all:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The one country that seems convinced it has benefited from the Iraq war is Washington's closest Middle East ally, Israel.
"It has certainly made Israel a safer place," Alpher said. "It has brought about a situation where there is no conventional military threat to Israel at all."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They must be happy. Saddam is gone and many terrorists have found someone else to be **** off at... us.
like i would like to have stopped the war in iraq.. and like... just not acted.. i wonder if any terror attacks wouldve happened if you know what i mean..
in other words.. usually violence only begets more violence..
<span style='color:red'>***Locked.***</span>