The point is that he was never relevant to the desires of the Bush administration. It just confirms officially that all that stuff you heard about disarmament, dangerous weapons and so on was nothing but PR bluster. It's appropriate that Mr Blair was responsible for six months of a PR charade,
Hans (Solo) Blix made it irrelevant with his unwillingness to get serious and hardnose ..... "please oh please Mr. Saddam show us just a little "
What the fuck does Blix know anyway? He's Swiss or Swedish or something. That's practically French AND German. Well, European at least. Traitorous bastard can't be trusted.
more importantly, he's incompetent... bottom line: Iraq broke UN rules regarding weapons = military action is allowed = we are seeing miitary action...
He didn't cravenly capitulate to Bush's war fever or invent WMDs he didn't find. Ergo, he was incompetent, at least in some hawks' imaginations. In other words, some hawks have judged his competence based on his use in starting a war, not in his official duties.
Got that right. And he talks funny too. We need more guys like that lapdog guy, whazzisname, Tony Blake or something like that. He talks kinda funny himself, but he at least thinks the right way. Yep, they sure did break UN rules, and who gives a damn if the USA broke UN rules in enforcing the UN rules that Iraq broke? Yeah. I'm starting to see the light now! Dumbya is now my hero.
Let me rephrase... The UN is incompetent, therefore irrelevant. Saddam has obviously breached UN laws, which in return allows military action. The UN simply is too feeble to enforce their own rules or force compliance.. Everyone is getting so focused on the minute details and finger pointing, that they are forgetting the larger picture..
Oh, the UN is incompetent on security issues. The veto is a daft concept. The UN system works best in a multipolar world, so countries have to respect each others strength. The fundamental problem for the UN is that we live in a unipolar world presently. The solution is to either create greater powers outside the US (Europe merging, China and India growing, Russia reviving), or to reform the UN.
Makes sense to me. The UN is incompetent therefore irrelevant. So, since Saddam "breached UN laws" we have to punish him, because even though the UN itself is irrelevent the "UN laws" it creates are relevant. Because I can seperate the irrelevance of the UN from the relevance of its "laws" so long as the war lasts, and once it's over, we'll send all them damned foreigners back home because we'll disband the irrelevant UN after we've enforced the UN's relevant "laws." Is that it, or am I missing something?
What the evil Fire fan said. I think most of your nincompoops who insist on throwing baseless accusations at people who have had good reasons to suggest that we didn't need to go to war just yet should probably shut the ************ up and just enjoy the fact that ultimately, Bush is going to be "historically justified", mostly because that is the way history works. Your going to have to enjoy, in some self-serving, cheshire cat grinning kind of way, that ultimately this war is going to be a success. I.e. the Iraqis are going to be better off and we are going to have one less tyrant in power.
Win the war? Sure, of course we are going to win the war. The issue is, as the Pentagon itself puts it, "winning the peace". Nobody thinks that the world is served well by Saddam, but few people outside of the US think that the world is well-served by a multi-year military occupation of a Middle Eastern country, either. And nearly every insider who is willing to talk about that issue admits that the Admin has spent almost no time on that issue. Contrast the secondary emphasis that a post-Saddam Iraq strategy has gotten with the multilateral occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII, which was in the planning stages for two years before it happened. Once the US troops are in control of the country, the clock will be ticking to get them out of there. The longer the occupation, the more likely it is that a grassroots anti-US movement takes hold. The person who could be enjoying this the most is Osama.
I think Hans Blix tried to do -- and probably did -- a good job, all things considered. He and el Baradei struck me as knowledgable guys, good executives and administrators, and strong communicators. When some reporter asked Blix if he had been "dressed down" by Condi Rice, he made an emphatic point that they had had cordial and professional discussions, and that no such arrogance has been displayed. His first report to the council I thought pulled no punches, and was incredibly damning of Saddam. That being said, I think he firmly believed that if he put the pressure on, Saddam would change his stripes. And isn't this only natural? After all, he WANTs to be effective, he WANTS to believe that he has power, and can make things happen. So he gives his first report, and then sees Saddam start to make some concessions, and concludes, "Hey, I've got some influence here." And when you start having influence, you want to keep on keepin' on. But like so many others, he was lulled into a certain mental fog about the prevarication and game-playing of the Iraqis. So, he comes to the SC, and delivers report 2, the 170 page plus document. So instead, like in his first oral report, letting Saddam have it for the 26 areas of uncertainty and non-compliance detailed in this second report, his focus is on the "measures" Saddam HAS taken to "comply." The emphasis has switched because, naturally, Blix wants to see himself, indeed BELIEVES himself, AS effective. Anyway, he has his right to his view on our patience, or lack thereof. But you know, we've goen the inspections route, and security council route, for TWELVE years -- and have watched as Saddam lied, presented false declarations, and otherwise woke up every morning thinking, "Gee, what can I get away with today?" I think our patience has been awfully awfully good.
Karl, there was a long article I linked a few days ago, which had some interesting insight into Blix. The article argued that Blix was kinda freaked out at how the Bushies interpreted his first report. He felt that they were using it wrongly, to justify a war. Blix thought he had submitted a mixed report...the Iraqis did some things right, and some things wrong. So, subsequently, he was careful to spin things in a pro-Iraqi way. Not so much because he was pro-Iraq, but because he didn't trust the Bushies. I guess you could say it was pre-emptive spinning. FWIW. oman...no, winning the war won't automatically make Bush historically justified. Nobody thinks McKinley was a great president.
I'd like to see that article; post the link if you can. However, when I heard him deliver the first report, my immediate reaction was, "Yikes!! This is really condemnatory of the Iraqis." I'll confess I am preternaturally disposed to think Saddam a complete manipulator, but, boy, I honestly don't think I overreacted to his presentation. Really, it was a jaw-dropping catalogue of non-compliance and prevarication. Your view, or rather this article's view, makes Blix seem awfully naive. He strikes me as way too smart, too shrewd, too much a master of language and tone, and too politically astute to think that "The Americans won't take what I say and run with it." He KNEW they were going to glom onto ANYTHING negative he said, and so we did.
It's probably on page 2 now, if not page 3. The thread had a title something about, everyone gets criticized. The link is in the article. A cynic might say, you're saying Blix is a fool for believing Bush when he said he didn't want a war. And a cynic might further point out that when the leftwing pinko commies here argue that Bush was never serious about peace, the hawks say we're defending Saddam, or we hate the president, or whatever.
I'll dig it out. Believe me, I think Hans Blix is nobody's fool. The only ones in this whole episode who were naive were Colin Powell and John Negroponte, who actually believed the French when they said they bought into the idea in November that non-compliance THIS time meant force. I also think that throughout, Blix tried to do his job the right way, as he believed appropriate. Finally, I think the issue of "Bush was never serious about peace" is the wrong way to think about it. Instead, better to say that "Bush believed Saddam was NEVER going to fully, fairly, and completely comply with 1441 or any other of the extant resolutions." And that THAT inevitably would support and justify the use of force. Being the smart guy that he is, I believe Blix knew this. And I think both of Blix's reports, despite the change in emphasis, pretty much confirmed Saddam's non-compliance.
Seriously, why didn't Bush just say this then instead of trotting out BS stories and crying wolf? Macchiavelli aside, sometimes (not always, but sometimes) honesty really is the best policy. My suspicion is that Bush had already made up his mind to go to war before he was even President and regardless of anything. Therefore, he was afraid (probably correctly) that the rest of the world was operating on the assumption that as long as Saddam was not a threat to anyone tougher than Kuwait he wasn't worth invading and if Bush tried to play it straight he wouldn't be able to get his war on with UN support. Where Bush was naive was in believing that he could just huff and puff and lie his way into UN approval. He was shocked when people around the world (including the leadership of France, Germany, China, etc.) didn't simply roll over and instead called his bluff. And since Bush had obviously locked himself into just one course of action, that allowed other countries to try to exploit us for bribe money and who knows what all else to cooperate. I hope for and expect a quick U.S. military victory with as few casualties as possible even though I am concerned that such a victory will only reinforce Bush's arrogant belligerence towards the rest of the world thereby causing him to make more strategic errors when "waging the peace". I think someone in the administration needs to sit Bush down, explain to him the basics of diplomacy and foreign policy making and make sure he knows that despite the military victory in Iraq he can't just shoot his way out of every problem that comes along. Unfortunately, I also think that this is almost as likely as the Miami Fusion winning MLS Cup 2003. I hope I'm wrong about that.
For the Blix apologists The Blix apologists mystify me: Here's Hans: "I somewhat doubt that when (the Security Council) got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections," Mr Blix said. A fair reading of Res 1441 and the Dec. 7 deadline for Iraq to declare and disclose all WMD is that the whole disarmament affair was to be a mop-up, more than a return to the past hide-and-seek inspection process. This seems to me an irrefutable and undeniable fact. How can Blix think that what the UN meant to do was restart the whole charade and not really holding Sadaam to account? Or maybe he thought reasonably that Sadaam would never reveal his WMD so that the old-style inspection regime would be needed. He is either a dullard or duplicitous or both. I personnally thinks he loves flying around the western world in a position of importance. Who wouldn't. Mr. Blix, please join Ken Starr in the line for puffed-up functionaries now deflated.
Re: For the Blix apologists That's not what the December deadline said. I find it fairly amusing to read the new theory that somehow Blix and ElBaradei misread Resolution 1441. ElBaradei pointed out fraudulent documents, and was ignored. Blix made a thorough report, and the US claimed he didn't. Both men pointed out huge gaps between US intelligence and what they found. A fair reading of 1441 shows the United States in breach as much as Iraq. Apparently the US forgot to let Blix and ElBaradei know that, despite what 1441 said, they were simply to rubber-stamp Bush's lust for war, and not raise any inconvenient points. Maybe Ari should have given them White House press passes.