Posted on 03/11/2005 6:54:54 PM PST by Shermy
GREAT BARRINGTON -- Former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said last night that the world may see peace before it sees a warming in the relationship between the United Nations and the United States.
"I'm optimistic for peace in the long run," he said. "There has been tremendous change in the world."
But as for the relationship between his organization and the country in which it is located, "well, it couldn't get any worse," Blix said. "There are some people in the United States who would like to see [the United Nations] slide down into the East River."
Blix was speaking at a press conference just prior to his appearance as a speaker in the J. Leo and Catherine Mellon Dowd Lecture Series at Monument Mountain Regional High School.
Blix is best known for his role on behalf of the United Nations as a weapons inspector in Iraq prior to the United States' invasion of that country in March 2003.
Blix, who recently finished a book about that period called "Disarming Iraq," said last night that the United States and Great Britain misread Iraq's potential for possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
"The evidence was rather weak at the time," he said. "I don't believe that weapons from Iraq have been smuggled into Syria. I think that most of their chemical and biological weapons weredestroyedin 1991.
"The mistake the Iraqis committed was not inviting the inspectors in to corroborate their claims," Blix said. "We knew there was a portion of their arsenal that was unaccounted for.
"But the error on the part of the U.S. was saying that unaccounted for meant hidden. In fact, unaccounted to us meant that we had not found them, but not necessarily that they were hidden."
Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Blix said, made a tactical error.
"He fooled the U.N. into thinking he had weapons he didn't have," Blix said. "I liken that to someone putting up a sign that says 'Beware of the Dog,' with no dog to back it up."
Asked what he believed were the real reasons for the United States' decision to go to war, he said, "There were many reasons. Certainly, the U.S. believed in WMD."
He added that, "I was initially skeptical that Iraq's oil reserves were part of the reason for war. Earlyon,Ididn't feel so much that it mattered, but now I don't know. The U.S. is addicted to oil. A gallon of gasoline is only about half as expensive in the United States as it is in Europe, so there is not much restraint in using it here."
Blix added that the United States and Great Britain were also committed to expanding democracy in Middle Eastern countries.
"Without WMD, neither [British Prime Minister Anthony] Blair nor President Bush could have gone to Parliament or Congress and said, 'We want to Democratize this area. We want to send in troops and overthrow Saddam.' Without the threat of WMD, neither man would have had a majority."
Blix said the Bush administration deserves credit for overseeing the Iraqi elections.
"I don't think anyone in Baghdad thinks their lives are better now," he said. "But the trade-off is that, for Iraqis, this is the chance of a lifetime: to place a piece of paper in a box and help elect their leaders.
"I think we have to take our hats off to Mr. Bush," he said. "He insisted on these elections, and it was important that he followed through."
Blix said that, during his inspection trips to Iraq, he never feared for his life.
"You are never so safe when you are the guests of a totalitarian regime," he said. "There are certainly nuts out there who might have wanted to get at us. But our calculation was that the Iraq regime had more reason to keep us alive than make us dead."
Ping.
HUMMMM Hans, does this mean you took the bribes being offered. Care to show us you bank records.
Speak of the devil!
(some just mentioned his name on another thread)
"There are some people in the United States who would like to see [the United Nations] slide down into the East River."
Wait. Didn't Blix just say that America was wrong? It's not reporter's error, Blix always makes contradictory statements like that since he himself believed there were such weapons, though he questioned whether they were worth going to war about. France even Joseph Wilson thought there were some.
Nah, we wouldn't want to get the East River all dirty.
Blix says he thinks that most of Saddam's WMD's were destroyed in 1991...yet, if I recall correctly, it wasn't until 1995 that we even learned just how extensive his "bioweapons" program was after his son-in-law defected. Hell, Scott Ritter was telling us how dangerous Saddam was in 1998, as he testified before Congress.
A lot of the WMD probably was destroyed in 1991, and since some of it may deteriorate over time anyway, Saddam probably didn't care. He already had the knowledge, he had the scientists, he had the technology, he had the money and he had many willing nations to send him stuff so that he could make more anytime. But I still don't think Saddam destroyed all his stocks...maybe we'll find nasty things in Syria or the Bekaa valley?
There are a whole lot of people that would like to see that!
What a clueless little twit! Blix should spend more time at home feeding BS to his mushrooms in Sweden. Instead, his endless Bush-bashing, book hawking tour continues daily to reveal what an imbecile he is.
People who never lived in authoritarian state like under Saddam do not have idea how life was.
Thanks!
Regarding Blix's self-contradictory statements you mention in the other post, Blix is perhaps one of the few people I can think of who flip-flops more than John Kerry. He found Saddam in violation of UN resolutions before he found him not in violation. . .
Hope he's not planning on visiting North Korea soon. Did he see "Team America"?
This guy is an irritating a$$
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.