[eDebate] ans Newnam
Fri Jun 13 08:38:31 CDT 2003
I must agree with you. Looks like the Guardian got it wrong. (though not based on the evidence you posted yesterday which is all that I replied to.)
Now lets generalize that the left lies too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Korcok
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2003 9:25 AM
Subject: [eDebate] ans Newnam
Dunno what the Atlanta Journal Constitution said about Blix's comments yesterday, but today's has an excellent story about the death of
Atticus Finch. Well about the death of Gregory Peck, but same thing. But back to Iraq.
do ANY of you still think that UN weapons inspectors would have had a CHANCE in hell of ever finding wmds in Iraq? If there aren't/weren't any, then you KNOW Saddam and Sons would have stayed in power for at least another generation. If there are/were wmds in Iraq, you should have a 99.99% CERTAINTY that Blix wouldn't haqve found them with the Baathist murderer scum actively hiding them. And again, that would have guaranteed that Saddam and Sons would have kept power for at least another generation. So, one thing we now know to a near certainty, those who advocated giving UN weapons inspectors more time were actually advocating guaranteeing that Saddam and Sons, the most horrific regime of our times kept control of 25 million Iraqi slaves.
apparently there is to be no retraction from the Guardian about key claims in the Guardian article that Blix says are lies because Blix hasn't yet asked them to do so in writing. So either Hans Blix is lying or the Guardian is lying.
Now, your argument was that Washington/the administration/the Pentagon were deriding Blix's weapons inspections. Well, the administration and many others pointed out that the UN inspections were very very unlikely to work, to actually find any wmds. THAT is not the same thing as undermining them or calling Blix a dumbass or anything. It is to argue that they wouldn't be successful. In any case, THAT is not what the Guardian wrote. They wrote things like THIS: ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,974998,00.html )
Blix: I was smeared by the Pentagon
Helena Smith in New York Wednesday June 11, 2003 The Guardian
R21;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."
And those were LIES. At least according to Hans Blix. Blix said THIS:
( http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/12/1055220709200.html )
Bush officials not the bastards: Blix
June 13 2003
The chief United Nations weapons inspector, Hans Blix, says the Bush Administration criticised UN inspections - but has denied it pressured him or that he called US officials "bastards".
"I've had very good and correct relations with the Bush Administration," he said on Wednesday.
"I still do, I hope."
Dr Blix, who oversaw a fruitless search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, was quizzed about an interview published in the London newspaper The Guardian under the banner headline "I was smeared by the Pentagon".
The report also appeared in other newspapers around the world. "
"I have my detractors in Washington. There are bastards who spread things around, of course, who planted nasty things in the media," Dr Blix was quoted as telling the newspaper.
Asked yesterday if "bastards" referred to the Bush Administration, Dr Blix said: "No, no, absolutely not. I was talking about private individuals.
Asked whether the Bush Administration pressured UN inspectors, Dr Blix replied: "No, we had a correct relation with the Bush Administration all the way through."
The Guardian's assistant editor, Brian McDermott, said: "Blix hasn't come back to us to contradict what we've published. We absolutely stand by what our reporter has written."
The newspaper quoted Dr Blix as saying US officials pressured him to use more damning language when reporting on Iraq's alleged weapons.
"Of course, criticism - there was some. At one time there was a question to the CIA to inquire about me and I didn't take that very seriously," he said, without elaborating."
You know, Bill, even the above Associated Press story protects the Guardian somewhat. It excises an important paragraph from the original story that explains your gaffe. You wrote that the Atlanta Journal Constitution wrote that Blix claimed to have called "minor officials" in the Bush Administration the "bastards". NO, that isn't true, either, or at least Blix says it isn't true. He says his problem was with some SWEDE rather than with Americans, much less Bush Administration members. HERE, read this paragraph which was excised from the AP release but appeared in several stories like this one:
( http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,6588281%255E26038,00.html )
R20;Asked yesterday whether he used the word "bastards" referring to the Bush administration, Dr Blix replied: "No, no, absolutely not. I was talking about private individuals."
Dr Blix, who is retiring on June 30, explained that some people had waged a campaign against him since before he became chief UN inspector three years ago.
"There was a former Swedish prime minister who wrote about me a number of nasty articles," he said. This was an apparent reference to former Swedish deputy prime minister Per Ahlmark, who wrote in two US newspapers in January that Dr Blix, a fellow Swede, was soft on Iraq and was trying to appease Saddam Hussein.
When asked whether the Bush administration pressured UN inspectors, Dr Blix replied: "No, we had a correct relation with the Bush administration all the way through."
Finally, don't you find it frustrating that the left is attempting to challenge the Bush Administration's interpretation of intelligence and understanding of reality while lying, fucking up, and misreporting even the simplest stories?
Thanks for reading,
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman