0
   

BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'

 
 
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 12:01 am
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has accused "bastards" in the Pentagon of launching a smear campaign against him in the run-up to the war on Iraq.

In a strikingly frank interview with The Guardian, the mild-mannered doctor ditched diplomatic language to blast Washington for trying to undermine his mission to check Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.


The interview in short:
Quote:
Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon

Helena Smith in New York
Wednesday June 11, 2003
The Guardian

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.
Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon


More here:
One last warning from the man who made an enemy of Bush
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,846 • Replies: 61
No top replies

 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 09:32 am
Walter

You and I and quite a few others here witnessed this smear as it was occuring, and we spoke of it, recognizing all the predictable cliches and tactics. I'm very please Blix is speaking forthrightly about it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 09:37 am
There have been a lot of commentaries -printed, on radio and tv- today here in Europe about it.

In 'Old Europe' all commentators were praising Blix' attitude ... and thinking, all this would have no effect at all re. US government.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 09:49 am
The government will not be moved an inch, which is a clear value of pathological arrogance. But people may be moved. Bush and crowd will use the same tools again to attack Blix and to suggest all sorts of heinous personal failing, but this is one more voice for sanity, and that's valuable.
0 Replies
 
mamajuana
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:10 am
The Bush tactic may have had more strength to it had the Bush army been able to find WMD. World opinion doesn't matter to most of these people, but then it's recognized that they are parochial in outlook. And they've had so little experience in foreign affairs (and the arrogance to think it wasn't necessary) that they don't seem to recognize that so many things are falling apart.

Where the world comes in, however, is in more and more ways. World trade needs other countries; a stable currency needs more that wishful thinking. Tourism is a strong income for most countries. And, in this particular case, once doubt sets in it's very hard to get rid of. That's what's happening now. The WH apparently does not wish to bring up their impatience with the UN inspectors, because comparisons are being made.

I am glad Blix is speaking out. I think the kid gloves treatment has gone far enough. And the Jessica Lynch story here is harming the credibility gap even more.

It is really kind of awful when one feels the need to criticize one's country so much. In Clinton's case, they were busy criticizing the man and his womanizing. In this case, it is a fear for the direction of the country.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:29 am
Blix should wear their smear like a badge of honor. They are a bunch of clods and liars. To be smeared by the likes of the Bush handlers should be an honor.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 10:32 am
Hear, hear! I like that, "A Badge of Honor." c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Craven - These seem like opinions, yet you state them as facts. Cool
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
blatham wrote:
george

Oh come on. You are a smart guy, but you have a blind spot the size of a 58 Buick grille. Denigrations of Blix's character, motives, and objectivity were widespread (including here). Surely that was partly due to partisan zero-brainers in the media, but to think the administration didn't applaud, or even assist, in the promulgation of this black PR project is worse than naive.


'58 Buick grilles were quite large ! I believe your description above is largely accurate. I note also that Blix did his own pushback against the administration during those days and did it rather well. Mostly I found Blix to be well-balanced, very human, and reasonable. He said he was "vexed" by the chatter, but "didn't lose any sleep over it - a very civilized response. I believe that others should take that example to heart.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
I was very pleased to see that interview in the paper this morning. If I were a younger sort, I'd say that Mr. Blix rox!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
George

Apparently Scrat is having some trouble understanding your argument.

She wrote:

Quote:
George - I respect your opinion, but my point was that your statement (I've made it bold, first part I quote) above is correct. Blix was supposed to conduct inspections and report his findings. Period.


But that is not what your statement was at all. You specifically wrote:

Quote:
Blix' job was to conduct the inspections in accordance with the Security Council mandate.


It seems to me you very adequately pointed out that the mandate included two different perspecitves of what was needed -- essentially, a "guilty until proved innocent" versus "innocent until proved guilty" perspective. (Particularly distressing since the United States managed to place itself in the "guilty until proved innocent" category.

Scrat is technically right when she says Blix should have divorced himself from that in-fighting -- but I think an objective look at the problem shows that to be a lot easier suggested than implemented.

I think Blix did a journeyman's job considering everything -- and he certainly was very vocal in advocating that the United States should wait out the inspections.

But Bush and his handlers insisted that the weapons were there -- and that the inspectors were being hoodwinked.

Now, apparently the weapons are still there -- and it is the United States that is being hoodwinked.

OR THERE ARE NO MEANINGFUL STOCKS OF WEAP0NS TO FIND.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
I saw a couple of interviews with Blix conducted after the "news" came out. His attitide seemed reasonable and understandable, just as did that of the U.S. officials. Blix described his relations with the U.S. government as "good" and "correct", and I suspect reciprocal views are held as well. Where's the beef???

The stakes were high and the times intense. Some level of friction is inevitable. This doesn't seem to warrant all the hyperventillation it is getting.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Let's hear it for Blix.

Anyone who can get conservatives this rattled is probably doing things VERY RIGHT.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Blix made no attempt to settle the war question.

-----------------

The "smear campaign" against Blix was VERY obvious and most pronnounced before Blix got to Iraq.

You can do a search on thse boards to find people parroting the points in the campaign against him.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
george

Oh come on. You are a smart guy, but you have a blind spot the size of a 58 Buick grille. Denigrations of Blix's character, motives, and objectivity were widespread (including here). Surely that was partly due to partisan zero-brainers in the media, but to think the administration didn't applaud, or even assist, in the promulgation of this black PR project is worse than naive.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
...Blix' job was to conduct the inspections in accordance with the Security Council mandate. It became clear that the Security Council was itself divided with respect to the bias with which it should approach the problem. The U.S. and Britain adopted the view that Iraq was already in breach and for that and other reasons the regime had to go, and held that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that intervention was not warranted. France and her allies adopted the position that no intervention should occur without proof positive in the inspection process that Iraq had WMDs. ...

It was hardly reasonable to expect Mr. Blix in his assigned capacity to resolve this fundamental issue.

George - I respect your opinion, but my point was that your statement (I've made it bold, first part I quote) above is correct. Blix was supposed to conduct inspections and report his findings. Period. He should have done so as a scientist would--without a bias for or against and without consideration of what decisions others might take based on the facts he uncovered and reported. You cite these other considerations and suggest it was not reasonable to expect Blix to deal with them. I am stating that it was not his job to deal with them, and that his error was that he attempted to do just that.

Perhaps you think it would be impossible to do his job in a vacuum--and if that is your position, I can respect it. My position is that the only way he could effectively run the inspections is by doing so in a vacuum. His only allegiance should have been to the question of what Iraq had, what it had done and what it had not done. That was his job. It was the job of others in the UN and governments everywhere to make of that information what they would. Theirs was the job of drawing conclusions and considering the ramifications of the information.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
frank and ci

Yes, like being on Nixon's list...one had to be doing significant good.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
George

Allow me to concur with Setanta in his remarks to you.

Excellent reasoning -- and excellent exposition.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
So Blix is complaining that Washington thought the inspectors were softening the news, refusing to call things that were factually material breaches, material breaches, and is complaining that Iraqis were calling him a fag. ???

This is a Pentagon "smear campaign"?

I don't doubt that the Pentagon was quite openly and vocally negative on Blix, but that's called having an opinion, or taking a position. (It seems more and more that when those who are perceived as "conservatives" express an opinion or take a position contrary to others, it is categorized with terms such as "hate", "smear campaign", etc..)

I think that Blix did his job poorly, because he tried to serve two masters. His job was to inspect and report on whether Iraq was or was not in compliance. There is no question about it; they were not in compliance. The problem was, Blix believed he had a second job, which he gave primacy over the first; avoiding war. Towards this end he reported materials breaches without calling them material breaches, he quibbled and equivocated.

Noting this was not a "smear campaign". It may have been a debatable matter with which Blix would disagree, but that doesn't make it a "smear campaign".
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 11 Jun, 2003 06:00 pm
Wanna get into circle thoughts? There is only one "fact" everything else is an opinion.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » BLIX BLASTS US 'BASTARDS'
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 12:47:56