Mary Malmros wrote:


BrritSki wrote:

John Red-Horse wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

There's only been one quote provided so far. That was Blix'
statement of Feb 2003 to the Security Council. In it he did NOT say
there were no WMDs, only that he didn't find any which is an
entirely different thing.

I have not moved any goalposts or shifted my ground in any way. On
the contrary, I started out asking Ant to quote from her posts here
and I've now widened it. Let me repeat - show me 1 quote from
anyone, anywhere and I'll be happy to be proved wrong.



Okay, Walt's given you Usenet posts, but there certainly were people
during the time of the debate who were arguing that Hussein wasn't, as
posed by our own government, an immediate threat to the US.

Robert Scheer, the progressive (former) LA Times columnist, apparently
wrote this in one of his own columns in August of 2002. Here's a quote
from an article on FAIR's website, which discusses his firing in
mid-Nov:

Scheer's forceful and independent commentary has often placed him in
the middle of national debates. He has been one of the strongest
critics of the White House over the Iraq War. For instance, in a
pre-war column (8/6/02) that undercuts the current notion that
everyone got the WMD story wrong, Scheer wrote that "a consensus of
experts" told the Senate that Iraq's chemical and biological arsenals
were "almost totally destroyed during eight years of inspections."

And I distinctly remember some of Scheer's columns picking apart of the
Administrations claims for a then-current Iragi nuclear capability as
well
during the build up to the fiasco^wwar. I can try to look these up for
you if you'd like...

No, no need. Thanks for the quote above, that's the kind of
intelligent argument I was interesting in having before I got
sidetracked by Ant an Mary.

I never believed Iraq had a nuclear capability, or 45 minute claims
and so on, and I freely admit that I didn't hear any arguments that
none existed from any serious commentators pre-war, in particular Hans
Blix who seemed (to me) to blow with the wind.


Quote?


Before the war his reports and actions indicated that he needed to keep
looking. See the url Walt posted dated Feb 23rd 2003 for evidence.

In May 2003 he was starting to have doubts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,962405,00.html
(for those who don't know, the Guardian is a serious left-wing newspaper
in GB that is seriously anti Bush & Blair.

Then almost a year later when he has a book to sell his story changes
again (interesting story, no idea of the political leanings and
credibnility of the website, but I remember the BBC interview:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/apostolou200402180915.asp

What I meant by "blow with the wind" was that his views changed to suit
the prevailing situation.

It took me but a few minutes to back up my assertion, why was it so
difficult for you to do the same ? Was it easier to start bleating
about intellectual dishonesty and so on before you'd even seen an
answer? Or did you mix me up with some of the other people in this
discussion ?

If you look back up the thread you'll find that apart from being rude to
Astro (arse on a plate) and the cheap shot against you earlier
(apologies - my knee was hurting and I'd just learnt that the local hill
is not opening tomorrow) I've not been calling people names, just asking
questions, putting an opposing POV and asking for quotes politely.

SHeesh.