Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:27 pm
Originally posted by Folic_Acid
:mad:
Jimmy - THIS is antagonizing. It adds nothing but anger and contempt to an otherwise civil discussion.
[b]Stop. [/B]
No shit that is antagonizing, but is called replying, after three shots ahve already been taken at me(one not name specific). Of course you telling one of your buddies to 'stop' would never happen(well, after pointing that out, you never know, you might). It is funny how shots are allowed to be taken, but swinging back isn't.
It is funny how I called this would slide. It is also funny how the slide happened without comments on the topic, besides me saying it will go bad.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:28 pm
The hard part is to try and convince everyone how important the actions taken concerning Iraq were irregardless of WMD's or not.
Now I must admit that I belong to a select group of about 500,000 that got the pleasure of a trip over there the first go round. Perhaps my viewpoints are different from most people? But I understood the reasons for the first war. found no merit in not finishing it off then (thus sparing another generation the horrors of war) and am arguably 90-95% solid on fighting this war. The slight doubt is I do not want to lose any of my former brothers in arms.
But I knew long before we actually invaded Iraq in Gulf War II the real reasons behind it so I did not need any WMD scare talk to convince me it was neccesary. Granted that my previous experiences (and age no doubt
) allow me to be a bit more interested in, pay attention to, and be a bit more informed about the ongoing conflicts taking place in the Gulf region.
If you study the history of Al Queda and their actions since the early 90's you would see that we had one of two choices available. Invade Iraq or go home. Nobody, and I mean absolutely no-one, wether US, French German, British, Japanese, Saudi, you name it nationality wanted us to just leave. So what choice were we left with?
Now I am an action not words kind of guy so I say why wait? lets get it done now and not worry about it later. Maybe if there had been a few more like that around in 91 we wouldn't even be having this discussion now would we?
Now I must admit that I belong to a select group of about 500,000 that got the pleasure of a trip over there the first go round. Perhaps my viewpoints are different from most people? But I understood the reasons for the first war. found no merit in not finishing it off then (thus sparing another generation the horrors of war) and am arguably 90-95% solid on fighting this war. The slight doubt is I do not want to lose any of my former brothers in arms.
But I knew long before we actually invaded Iraq in Gulf War II the real reasons behind it so I did not need any WMD scare talk to convince me it was neccesary. Granted that my previous experiences (and age no doubt
) allow me to be a bit more interested in, pay attention to, and be a bit more informed about the ongoing conflicts taking place in the Gulf region.
If you study the history of Al Queda and their actions since the early 90's you would see that we had one of two choices available. Invade Iraq or go home. Nobody, and I mean absolutely no-one, wether US, French German, British, Japanese, Saudi, you name it nationality wanted us to just leave. So what choice were we left with?
Now I am an action not words kind of guy so I say why wait? lets get it done now and not worry about it later. Maybe if there had been a few more like that around in 91 we wouldn't even be having this discussion now would we?
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:33 pm
Originally posted by JimmyTango
No shit that is antagonizing, but is called replying, after three shots ahve already been taken at me(one not name specific). It is funny how shots are allowed to be taken, but swinging back isn't.
Jimmy, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Next time, try ignoring it.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:39 pm
I saw you need me. So i bring a little shit to the debate.
"To conclude, I offer a philosophical question - what is a legitimate reason to go to war, if overthrowing tyrants and securing peace and freedom are not acceptable reasons?"
Not about "philosophical" but a nearest future.
"If the state proves to be inapt to nourish its citizens, from the
necessity of these citizens, will be his moral right to acquire
foreign lands. The plough will leave to the sword, the tears
of the war will prepare the harvests of the future world."
A. Hitler
"To conclude, I offer a philosophical question - what is a legitimate reason to go to war, if overthrowing tyrants and securing peace and freedom are not acceptable reasons?"
Not about "philosophical" but a nearest future.
"If the state proves to be inapt to nourish its citizens, from the
necessity of these citizens, will be his moral right to acquire
foreign lands. The plough will leave to the sword, the tears
of the war will prepare the harvests of the future world."
A. Hitler
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:46 pm
Originally posted by Colonel Ingus
The hard part is to try and convince everyone how important the actions taken concerning Iraq were irregardless of WMD's or not.
Now I must admit that I belong to a select group of about 500,000 that got the pleasure of a trip over there the first go round. Perhaps my viewpoints are different from most people? But I understood the reasons for the first war. found no merit in not finishing it off then (thus sparing another generation the horrors of war) and am arguably 90-95% solid on fighting this war. The slight doubt is I do not want to lose any of my former brothers in arms......
My respects for you Colonel Ingus
.
Still listening....
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:49 pm
Originally posted by Folic_Acid
Are freedom and liberty not justification enough to fight? Since we've got freedom, we don't care about anyone else?
Perhaps some have placed a bullseye on the back of the US and her coalition partners, but we are certainly not "unilateral" or "alone" in our beliefs or actions, as some would claim. France, Belgium, Germany, Russia, and Canada, while still our allies, are certainly not "the world."
I agree, and I feel that way somedays. I am somewhat split on how I feel. I do feel we should defend others that are unable to lift themselves up as we did. But also I understand we operate in a very volitile world and wonder why we couldn't have found maybe another option other than an invasion and takeover. Also, yes we do have coalition partners. But I am discussing the big boys not Samoa and Poland.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:51 pm
Originally posted by Blablabla
"If the state proves to be inapt to nourish its citizens, from thenecessity of these citizens, will be his moral right to acquire foreign lands. The plough will leave to the sword, the tears of the war will prepare the harvests of the future world."
A. Hitler
Ahh.... You've read Mein Kampf. The problem with this quote is that it's taken out of context. The context is the argument of racial self-determination as presented by Hitler, as opposed to the established national self-determination of the Treaty of Versailles, which split various quasi-racial groups(in this case, it was Germanic peoples, obviously) into different countries (Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, to name a few). Hitler went on to propose that a moral right existed to acquire the lands of "lesser" races.
Obviously, the annexation of Iraq is (and never has been) the purpose of coalition action in Iraq. I don't think anyone views Iraqis as a "lesser" race, nor does anyone think the United States (or anyone other than the Iraqis) have a claim to the land of Iraq.
So, unfortunately, you've missed the mark.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:52 pm
Originally posted by buliwyf
Ok let me chime in here...
Am I proud to be an American? Yes of course. Now sure Bush and his cabinet may have turned this war into a jumble by allegations and speculations and perhaps going to IRAQ and sparing lives of our brothers and sisters is a harsh thing to do, BUT, please keep this in mind:
1: the men and women who join the Army have to expect things like this to happen. Joining the Army is not just for education, it's a duty
Thier loyalty demands that we command them with wisdom and intelligence.
2: Perhaps we should not be so hasty on preparing to attack another country when we could have been more secure and safe by PREVENTING this whole mess from the very beggining. Security and information was not what it should have been
Good point
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:58 pm
Originally posted by -HaVoC-
I agree, and I feel that way somedays. I am somewhat split on how I feel. I do feel we should defend others that are unable to lift themselves up as we did. But also I understand we operate in a very volitile world and wonder why we couldn't have found maybe another option other than an invasion and takeover. Also, yes we do have coalition partners. But I am discussing the big boys not Samoa and Poland.
Havoc, that's a very respectable and reasonable position to have. Truth be told, I also would've preferred a non-violent response. However, knowing what I know about the 12 year ordeal of endless Security Council resolutions going unheeded and weapons inspectors being denied information or cooperation at every turn, I feel like we pretty much HAD exhausted every possible option. However, I certainly understand where you're coming from, and respect your position.
I'm not talking about Samoa either. I'm thinking more of Britain, Spain, Italy, Japan, and the like.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 4:59 pm
Come on now guys lets remain civil here.
Havoc hate to disagree with you bud but the US supplying chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is completely false. No truth to it whatsoever. This is just a vicious rumour cast about to raise murk on the issue. Funny how when the DoD comes out with the documents to support this point of view it wasn't very well reported at all.
I don't know how old some of you guys are or wether you remember it all but during the Iran-Iraq war Reagen was supplying the IRANIANS!. If you don't know what I am talking about research Iran-Contra. At the time we sent them over 600 Hawk anti-aircraft missles of which we only made 200 a year.
Getting back to the age thing again my borthers, cousins and friends and I were in the gulf in the 80's blowing the crap out of IRANIAN property and shooting up IRANIAN oil platforms. Meanwhile good 'ole Ronny was supplying them to fund his Contra's. Also search the USS Stark incident. This was a US Frigate patrolling the Gulf and was shot with a couple of exocets by an IRAQI aircraft.
Oh and BTW I am not a Bush fan I think his domestic policy blows (I could rant for hours on this one but I won't). But he was right on this one and I will give credit were credit is due.
[edit]
This rumour grew out of the fact that we were supporting Osama and his Mujahadeen rebels in Afghanistan. Which we were. Different times then though folks. Not defending it just stating a fact.
Havoc hate to disagree with you bud but the US supplying chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war is completely false. No truth to it whatsoever. This is just a vicious rumour cast about to raise murk on the issue. Funny how when the DoD comes out with the documents to support this point of view it wasn't very well reported at all.
I don't know how old some of you guys are or wether you remember it all but during the Iran-Iraq war Reagen was supplying the IRANIANS!. If you don't know what I am talking about research Iran-Contra. At the time we sent them over 600 Hawk anti-aircraft missles of which we only made 200 a year.
Getting back to the age thing again my borthers, cousins and friends and I were in the gulf in the 80's blowing the crap out of IRANIAN property and shooting up IRANIAN oil platforms. Meanwhile good 'ole Ronny was supplying them to fund his Contra's. Also search the USS Stark incident. This was a US Frigate patrolling the Gulf and was shot with a couple of exocets by an IRAQI aircraft.
Oh and BTW I am not a Bush fan I think his domestic policy blows (I could rant for hours on this one but I won't). But he was right on this one and I will give credit were credit is due.
[edit]
This rumour grew out of the fact that we were supporting Osama and his Mujahadeen rebels in Afghanistan. Which we were. Different times then though folks. Not defending it just stating a fact.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:06 pm
All this junk about not finding the Weapons of Mass Destruction is just that garbage. As September 11th demonstrated these WMD are not just chemical or nuclear but can also be a bunch of deranged people with misguided notions. Iraq and Afghanistan were'nt exactly the friendliest of people towards America and thus had to be dealt with simply because they turned there hatred into weapons and Bush had the balls to just go in there and blow shit up ... crude .. maybe but I think a message was sent.
Also I still think some chemical weapons are out there maybe not nuclear.
Also I still think some chemical weapons are out there maybe not nuclear.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:13 pm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/LEO306E.html
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was so eager to see the United States launch a preemptive strike against Iraq in early 2002, that he ordered the CIA to investigate the past work of Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, who in February 2002, was asked to lead a team of U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, in an attempt to undermine the scientist.
The unusual move by Wolfowitz underscores the steps the Bush administration was willing to take a year before the U.S. invaded Iraq to manipulate and or exaggerate intelligence information to support it’s claims that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States and that the only solution to quell the problem was the use of military force.
U.S. military forces in Iraq have yet to find any evidence of WMD. Some U.S. lawmakers have accused the Bush administration of distorting intelligence information, which claimed Iraq possessed tons of chemical and biological agents, to justify the attack to overthrow Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein. Although the Bush administration continues to deny the accusations, evidence, such as the secret report Wolfowitz asked the CIA in January 2002 to produce on Blix, prove that the administration had already decided that removing Saddam from power would require military force and it would do so regardless of the U.N..
Earlier this month, Blix accused the Bush administration of launching a smear campaign against him because he could not find evidence of WMD in Iraq and, he said, he refused to pump up his reports to the U.N. about Iraq’s WMD programs, which would have given the U.S. the evidence it needed to get a majority of U.N. member countries to support a war against Iraq. Instead, Blix said the U.N. inspectors should be allowed more time to conduct searches in Iraq for WMD.
In a June 11 interview with the London Guardian newspaper, Blix said “U.S. officials pressured him to use more damning language when reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons programs.“
“By and large my relations with the U.S. were good,'' Blix told the Guardian. “But toward the end the (Bush) administration leaned on us.'”
Tensions between Blix and the hawks in the Bush administration, such as Wolfowitz, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, go back at least two years, when President Bush, at the urging of Secretary of State Colin Powell, said he wanted the U.N. to resurrect U.N. arms inspections for Iraq.
The move angered some in the administration, such as Wolfowitz, who, according to an April 15 report in the Washington Post, wanted to see military action against Iraq sooner rather than later.
When the U.N. said privately in January 2002 that Blix would lead an inspections team into Iraq, Wolfowitz contacted the CIA to produce a report on why Blix, as chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency during the 1980s and 1990s, failed to detect Iraqi nuclear activity.
But, according to the Washington Post’s April 15, 2002 story, the CIA report said Blix “had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants fully within the parameters he could operate as chief of the Vienna-based agency between 1981 and 1997.”
Wolfowitz, according to the Post, quoting a former State Department official familiar with the report, “hit the ceiling" because it failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program.”
“The request for a CIA investigation underscored the degree of concern by Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power,” the Post reported.
Soon after the CIA issued its report, the administration began exaggerating intelligence information of Iraq’s weapons programs and, in some cases, forcing intelligence officials to “cook” up information to support a war, according to a Nov. 19, 2002 story in the London Guardian newspaper.
For example, last August, Cheney said Iraq would have nuclear weapons “fairly soon” - in direct contradiction of CIA reports that said it would take at least five more years.
Rumsfeld, in public comments last year, accused Saddam Hussein of providing sanctuary to al-Qaida operatives fleeing Afghanistan - although they had actually traveled to Iraqi Kurdistan, which is outside Saddam’s control, the Guardian reported.
On Feb. 12, 2002, a week or so after the CIA issued its report to Wolfowitz on Blix, reporters questioned Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about the accuracy of the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq was harboring al-Qaida terrorists and the countries alleged stockpile of WMD, which some news reports said was not true.
Rumsfeld’s response to the reporters’ questions about the accuracy of the information proves that the Defense Secretary cares little about providing the public with thoughtful, intelligent analysis.
“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know,” Rumsfeld said.
But on Wednesday, Rumsfeld and Gen Richard Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, radically changed their stance on the accuracy of such intelligence The officials said at a news conference that intelligence information the U.S. gathered leading up to the war in Iraq that concluded the country possessed WMD may have been wrong.
“Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean something is true,” Myers said “It's just -- it's intelligence. You know, it's your best estimate of the situation. It doesn't mean it's a fact. I mean, that's not what intelligence is. It's not -- they're -- and so you make judgments.”
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, was so eager to see the United States launch a preemptive strike against Iraq in early 2002, that he ordered the CIA to investigate the past work of Hans Blix, the chief United Nations weapons inspector, who in February 2002, was asked to lead a team of U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, in an attempt to undermine the scientist.
The unusual move by Wolfowitz underscores the steps the Bush administration was willing to take a year before the U.S. invaded Iraq to manipulate and or exaggerate intelligence information to support it’s claims that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the United States and that the only solution to quell the problem was the use of military force.
U.S. military forces in Iraq have yet to find any evidence of WMD. Some U.S. lawmakers have accused the Bush administration of distorting intelligence information, which claimed Iraq possessed tons of chemical and biological agents, to justify the attack to overthrow Iraq’s President Saddam Hussein. Although the Bush administration continues to deny the accusations, evidence, such as the secret report Wolfowitz asked the CIA in January 2002 to produce on Blix, prove that the administration had already decided that removing Saddam from power would require military force and it would do so regardless of the U.N..
Earlier this month, Blix accused the Bush administration of launching a smear campaign against him because he could not find evidence of WMD in Iraq and, he said, he refused to pump up his reports to the U.N. about Iraq’s WMD programs, which would have given the U.S. the evidence it needed to get a majority of U.N. member countries to support a war against Iraq. Instead, Blix said the U.N. inspectors should be allowed more time to conduct searches in Iraq for WMD.
In a June 11 interview with the London Guardian newspaper, Blix said “U.S. officials pressured him to use more damning language when reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons programs.“
“By and large my relations with the U.S. were good,'' Blix told the Guardian. “But toward the end the (Bush) administration leaned on us.'”
Tensions between Blix and the hawks in the Bush administration, such as Wolfowitz, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney, go back at least two years, when President Bush, at the urging of Secretary of State Colin Powell, said he wanted the U.N. to resurrect U.N. arms inspections for Iraq.
The move angered some in the administration, such as Wolfowitz, who, according to an April 15 report in the Washington Post, wanted to see military action against Iraq sooner rather than later.
When the U.N. said privately in January 2002 that Blix would lead an inspections team into Iraq, Wolfowitz contacted the CIA to produce a report on why Blix, as chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency during the 1980s and 1990s, failed to detect Iraqi nuclear activity.
But, according to the Washington Post’s April 15, 2002 story, the CIA report said Blix “had conducted inspections of Iraq's declared nuclear power plants fully within the parameters he could operate as chief of the Vienna-based agency between 1981 and 1997.”
Wolfowitz, according to the Post, quoting a former State Department official familiar with the report, “hit the ceiling" because it failed to provide sufficient ammunition to undermine Blix and, by association, the new U.N. weapons inspection program.”
“The request for a CIA investigation underscored the degree of concern by Wolfowitz and his civilian colleagues in the Pentagon that new inspections -- or protracted negotiations over them -- could torpedo their plans for military action to remove Hussein from power,” the Post reported.
Soon after the CIA issued its report, the administration began exaggerating intelligence information of Iraq’s weapons programs and, in some cases, forcing intelligence officials to “cook” up information to support a war, according to a Nov. 19, 2002 story in the London Guardian newspaper.
For example, last August, Cheney said Iraq would have nuclear weapons “fairly soon” - in direct contradiction of CIA reports that said it would take at least five more years.
Rumsfeld, in public comments last year, accused Saddam Hussein of providing sanctuary to al-Qaida operatives fleeing Afghanistan - although they had actually traveled to Iraqi Kurdistan, which is outside Saddam’s control, the Guardian reported.
On Feb. 12, 2002, a week or so after the CIA issued its report to Wolfowitz on Blix, reporters questioned Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld about the accuracy of the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq was harboring al-Qaida terrorists and the countries alleged stockpile of WMD, which some news reports said was not true.
Rumsfeld’s response to the reporters’ questions about the accuracy of the information proves that the Defense Secretary cares little about providing the public with thoughtful, intelligent analysis.
“Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know,” Rumsfeld said.
But on Wednesday, Rumsfeld and Gen Richard Myers, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, radically changed their stance on the accuracy of such intelligence The officials said at a news conference that intelligence information the U.S. gathered leading up to the war in Iraq that concluded the country possessed WMD may have been wrong.
“Intelligence doesn't necessarily mean something is true,” Myers said “It's just -- it's intelligence. You know, it's your best estimate of the situation. It doesn't mean it's a fact. I mean, that's not what intelligence is. It's not -- they're -- and so you make judgments.”
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:14 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974998,00.html
Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.
In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much.
"It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."
In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:
·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;
·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and
·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.
Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."
Before he had even flown to Iraq to relaunch the sensitive weapons inspections after a four-year hiatus last November, senior US defence department officials were excoriating the septuagenarian as the worst possible choice for the post.
It was just the beginning. By autumn, the happily married father of two was being branded in Baghdad as a "homosexual who went to Washington every two weeks to pick up [his] instructions".
"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.
A lot of the sniping "surely came" from the Pentagon, said Mr Blix, who has since won plaudits for his handling of the unenviable brief of divining whether Iraq had disarmed.
Staff attached to the UN monitoring and inspection commission, headed by the Swede for the past three years, openly say there is no love lost between hawks in the Bush administration and their mission.
Mr Blix, a former foreign minister, prefers to remain sanguine. "By and large my relations with the US were good," he said, reiterating his belief that the Iraqi regime would likely never have complied with any of the UN resolutions around disarmament had it not been for the presence of 200,000 US troops in the region.
"But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us," he conceded, hoping the inspectors would employ more damning language in their reports to swing votes on the UN security council.
Washington, he claimed, was particularly upset that the UN team did not "make more" of the discovery of cluster bombs and drones in March.
He said Washington's disappointment at not getting UN backing for an attack was "one reason why you find scepticism towards inspectors".
The life-long civil servant -who is looking forward to returning to a shared life with his wife in Stockholm as he turns 75 - said he was convinced that "there are people in this administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things".
Instead of seeing the UN as a collective body of decision-making states, Washington now viewed it as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it. Such [negative] feelings don't exist in Europe where people say that the UN is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff."
That was especially worrying given President Bush's openly proclaimed belief in the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "It would be more desirable and more reasonable to ask for security council authority, especially at a time when communism no longer exists and you don't have automatic vetoes from Russia and China," he said.
Similarly it would be much more "credible" if a team of international inspectors were sent into Iraq instead of the 1,300-strong US-appointed group now conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said.
Hans Blix, the UN chief weapons inspector, lashed out last night at the "bastards" who have tried to undermine him throughout the three years he has held his high-profile post.
In an extraordinary departure from the diplomatic language with which he has come to be associated, Mr Blix assailed his critics in both Washington and Iraq.
Speaking exclusively to the Guardian from his 31st floor office at the UN in New York, Mr Blix said: "I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media. Not that I cared very much.
"It was like a mosquito bite in the evening that is there in the morning, an irritant."
In a wide-ranging interview Mr Blix, who retires in three weeks' time, accused:
·The Bush administration of leaning on his inspectors to produce more damning language in their reports;
·"Some elements" of the Pentagon of being behind a smear campaign against him; and
·Washington of regarding the UN as an "alien power" which they hoped would sink into the East river.
Asked if he believed he had been the target of a deliberate smear campaign he said: "Yes, I probably was at a lower level."
Before he had even flown to Iraq to relaunch the sensitive weapons inspections after a four-year hiatus last November, senior US defence department officials were excoriating the septuagenarian as the worst possible choice for the post.
It was just the beginning. By autumn, the happily married father of two was being branded in Baghdad as a "homosexual who went to Washington every two weeks to pick up [his] instructions".
"The Iraqis were spreading that rumour about me early in the autumn and then I heard the counter-rumour that I had told my wife, Eva, about this rumour and that she said she had never noticed it. My alleged comment to her," he said, breaking into laughter, "was that nor had I." But the criticism clearly hurt.
A lot of the sniping "surely came" from the Pentagon, said Mr Blix, who has since won plaudits for his handling of the unenviable brief of divining whether Iraq had disarmed.
Staff attached to the UN monitoring and inspection commission, headed by the Swede for the past three years, openly say there is no love lost between hawks in the Bush administration and their mission.
Mr Blix, a former foreign minister, prefers to remain sanguine. "By and large my relations with the US were good," he said, reiterating his belief that the Iraqi regime would likely never have complied with any of the UN resolutions around disarmament had it not been for the presence of 200,000 US troops in the region.
"But towards the end the [Bush] administration leaned on us," he conceded, hoping the inspectors would employ more damning language in their reports to swing votes on the UN security council.
Washington, he claimed, was particularly upset that the UN team did not "make more" of the discovery of cluster bombs and drones in March.
He said Washington's disappointment at not getting UN backing for an attack was "one reason why you find scepticism towards inspectors".
The life-long civil servant -who is looking forward to returning to a shared life with his wife in Stockholm as he turns 75 - said he was convinced that "there are people in this administration who say they don't care if the UN sinks under the East river, and other crude things".
Instead of seeing the UN as a collective body of decision-making states, Washington now viewed it as an "alien power, even if it does hold considerable influence within it. Such [negative] feelings don't exist in Europe where people say that the UN is a lot of talk at dinners and fluffy stuff."
That was especially worrying given President Bush's openly proclaimed belief in the doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. "It would be more desirable and more reasonable to ask for security council authority, especially at a time when communism no longer exists and you don't have automatic vetoes from Russia and China," he said.
Similarly it would be much more "credible" if a team of international inspectors were sent into Iraq instead of the 1,300-strong US-appointed group now conducting the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:20 pm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/cnna.karl.dean/
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said a claim in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq sought large quantities of uranium in Africa was not accurate.
CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement late Friday saying his agency made a mistake in clearing the language in the president's speech.
Democrats have stepped up their criticism of Bush in recent days over the statement and the president's reasons for going to war.
CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl talked to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean about the dispute Friday before Tenet's statement was released:
If the Director of the CIA doesn't count, as some have said or alluded to this not being disproven, then nothing ever will and the blinders will always be on.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The White House said a claim in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq sought large quantities of uranium in Africa was not accurate.
CIA Director George Tenet issued a statement late Friday saying his agency made a mistake in clearing the language in the president's speech.
Democrats have stepped up their criticism of Bush in recent days over the statement and the president's reasons for going to war.
CNN congressional correspondent Jonathan Karl talked to Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean about the dispute Friday before Tenet's statement was released:
If the Director of the CIA doesn't count, as some have said or alluded to this not being disproven, then nothing ever will and the blinders will always be on.
Tue Dec 16, 2003 5:23 pm
Originally posted by -HaVoC-
: the men and women who join the Army have to expect things like this to happen. Joining the Army is not just for education, it's a duty
from HAVOC:
Thier loyalty demands that we command them with wisdom and intelligence
Agreed, however who is really to say what we truly know what is going on behind closed doors? I don't think ANY of us can truly say what was said or done is right or wrong as we do not know the facts %100. Should we as Americans know EVERYTHING that is going on? no, not in my opinion, BUT BUT BUT, I do feel a certain need to be kept in the loop appropriately and accordingly with a solid timeline is what is needed.