Walt wrote:
BrritSki wrote Hans Blix

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.


Hmmm. You cite one article from "a serious left-wing newspaper" and
another from The National Review (Bill Buckley's ultra-right vanity
press) and complain that they present an inconsistent view of Blix's
position. Are you sure it's Blix that's the variable here, and not the
agendas of the Guardian and the NR?

'Cause you're going to find everthing and everybody in the world "blows
with the wind" using that methodology.

Yes you're right, but I did say that I didn't know what the National
Review was. I also said that I remembered the BBC interview - "are you
saying I'm a liar?"

Actually, here is the transcript of the BBC interview:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/breakfast_with_frost/3470051.stm

Having read this interview and the NR article again, I found that I AM
guilty of misrepresenting St. Hans' position: in fact he is saying that
"we" now know that there were no WMDs, but they didn't know before the
war actually started, which is what I've been arguing all along. Sorry.