PDA

View Full Version : Blix Says Bush is Missusing Inspection reports


drastik
Jan 31, 2003, 09:30 AM
At this point, even I am getting tired of the political threads, but what can I say, its a politically charged time. This is from the New York Times today. You have to register for the site, so Ill just post most of the story. Registration is free, however, so youmight want to signup and read it all.


NITED NATIONS, Jan. 30 Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq's cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix on Wednesday challenged several of the Bush administration's assertions about Iraqi cheating and the notion that time was running out for disarming Iraq through peaceful means.

Advertisement





In a two-hour interview in his United Nations offices overlooking Midtown Manhattan, Mr. Blix, the chief chemical and biological weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the administration's campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

"Whatever we say will be used by some," Mr. Blix said, adding that he had strived to be "as factual and conscientious" as possible. "I did not tailor my report to the political wishes or hopes in Baghdad or Washington or any other place."

Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.

Similarly, he said, he had not seen convincing evidence that Iraq was sending weapons scientists to Syria, Jordan or any other country to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists.

He further disputed the Bush administration's allegations that his inspection agency might have been penetrated by Iraqi agents, and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad, compromising the inspections.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, which Mr. Bush also mentioned in his speech. "There are other states where there appear to be stronger links," such as Afghanistan, Mr. Blix said, noting that he had no intelligence reports on this issue. "It's bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction."



Sounds like Washington is turning the words around to take advantage, and Blix wants nothing to do with it. Doesn't want to be held accountable for the war. I do find it interesting that your normal spin has turned into some fabrication at this point.

Backtothemac
Jan 31, 2003, 01:20 PM
It sounds to me like Mr. Blix is not privy to the intel that we have. That is all. He is covering his own ass. He also said that Iraq is not coorporating, and if it doesn't, then military action may be the only answer.

I don't trust the NYTimes to begin with, and then the little thing that says advertisement means that someone paid them to run that.

So, take small quotes, and make it look like the UN is against the US. That is rich.

drastik
Jan 31, 2003, 02:35 PM
well, first off, the advertisement tag isn't from the article, on the site it rests above a flash ad. Since I just coppied the article over to this site, it didn't bring the flash. Sorry, That is always the Case with the Times, the ad tag staying in there, usually I remove it

I think you are right that Blix is trying to cover his own ass, I just ifnd it surious that he feels it needs to be covered. Really what I found interesting is that Powell is appearantly saying the inspectors reported something that they did not.


Mr. Blix took issue with what he said were Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's claims that the inspectors had found that Iraqi officials were hiding and moving illicit materials within and outside of Iraq to prevent their discovery. He said that the inspectors had reported no such incidents.


As far as not trusting the NYTimes: well, bias in the media exosts or both sides of the ailse, and I admittedly don't take too much of FOx news seriously. On the other hand, I don't think that these news sources just make stuff up, that's Silly. You can't skewr quotations from prominent sources, They'd retaliate.

macfan
Jan 31, 2003, 02:50 PM
Mr. Blix is responsible for reporting whether or not Iraq is cooperating. He has been reporting that they are not. He is not responsible for setting the policy of the United Nations or of the United States.

alex_ant
Jan 31, 2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
I don't trust the NYTimes to begin with, and then the little thing that says advertisement means that someone paid them to run that.
You're kidding right? CGI scripts that dynamically call up ads haven't been invented yet?

chrisfx811
Jan 31, 2003, 07:39 PM
the ny times is a notoriously "liberal" (read democrat) news source. you might as well ask hillary clinton to tell you the news:rolleyes:

Thanatoast
Jan 31, 2003, 07:52 PM
so liberal facts are less trustworthy than conservatives facts? kinda hard to spin a QUOTE.

chrisfx811
Jan 31, 2003, 08:12 PM
actually there are only 2 short quotes of blix, and the rest is the journalist's words.

Taft
Feb 1, 2003, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
It sounds to me like Mr. Blix is not privy to the intel that we have. That is all. He is covering his own ass. He also said that Iraq is not coorporating, and if it doesn't, then military action may be the only answer.

I don't trust the NYTimes to begin with, and then the little thing that says advertisement means that someone paid them to run that.

So, take small quotes, and make it look like the UN is against the US. That is rich.

Oh for Christ's sake!!! Get real!

You don't trust the NYTimes NEWS reporting because they have a liberal bias?? So they just make up news now? The article is based off a two hour interview that Blix gave from his home. And the article points out that he didn't recommend more inspections because he doesn't think that Iraq has had a change in heart of helping the inspectors. So the article wasn't ommitting all pro-Bush information.

If you feel that the NYTimes is biased, avoid their editorial page. They are still one of the most respected NEWS organizations out there.

And your comment on the advertisement is absolute ******!! I expect more from you than this kind of crap BTTM. EVERY newspaper out there has both internet and print adverstisements that they use to generate revenue. I just loaded the article twice (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/international/middleeast/31BLIX.html) and got a CheapTickets.com ad the first time and a Match.com ad the second time. So are those companies paying the NYTimes to smear the Bush administration??

Ha! Thats rich! "If there's no war, many more people will use our dating service. Our plan to discredit the President is working perfectly!! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!!"

Get in touch with reality there, bub. Too many conservative conspiracies bouncing around in that noggin' of yours.

And I'd also like to make a comment to all you people that have posted on this page immediately discrediting the article: dismissing information coming from a credible news source simply because you don't like the publications political leanings makes you look quite narrow minded. Its obvious you didn't even give the information a chance or look up the validity of the statements anywhere else. Your reaction was just a knee-jerk reaction.

Taft

chrisfx811
Feb 1, 2003, 05:36 PM
it is not conspiracy when you consider that over 80% of the news media in the u.s. votes democratic. for crying out loud, the book "bias" by bernard goldberg, a reputable cbs veteran, points out the vast liberal view of today's media, and the lack of a conservative point of view.

abdul
Feb 1, 2003, 06:43 PM
i think Dr Blix kows his words can cause the unjustified deaths of many iraqis that is why hes trying to spell them out, so even bush can understand!!!

MrMacMan
Feb 1, 2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by chrisfx811
it is not conspiracy when you consider that over 80% of the news media in the u.s. votes democratic. for crying out loud, the book "bias" by bernard goldberg, a reputable cbs veteran, points out the vast liberal view of today's media, and the lack of a conservative point of view.

Ha.
CNN is totally concertive biased. Are you kidding, I mean they never have good people for 'the left' on crossfire and they always make the left lost the argument.

If all of the news agencys are SO libeal biases why haven't they had stories about anti-war protest, or heck news stories!

They have been talking war since before bush pushed the plan forward. Everyday I see how well out troops are doing and being sent off. Yeah...

Taft
Feb 1, 2003, 10:05 PM
Fox News, The Chicago Tribune, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Washington Times, etc., etc. they all have conservative biases.

Also, the major TV networks are not really all that biased anymore. In fact its a precious few people who still cry foul at CNN or ABC's coverage of politics as preferential to the left.

The other thing you have to consider is that the opportunity for bias, at least "insideous" or blatant bias, isn't very prominent. While it can show itself in the types of stories an organization chooses to run, its more often found in the editorial page or with the columnists a organization employs. With the major TV networks, they are usually only covering the news, and the bias they have, if any, is less obvious.

Taft

springscansing
Feb 2, 2003, 02:20 AM
First of all, there is no longer a major bias in general in any media form anymore.

Secondly, the New York Times is a VERY reputable paper, and anyone who bashes the Times is insane.

ibjoshua
Feb 2, 2003, 07:42 AM
As usual Taft has pretty much summarised what I would have said. I'd like to add one thing though.

Bias in the media is usually pretty easy to detect when it's a part of the editorial content and reporting. So many news agencies these days try not to get caught out this way. What is NOT reported is much more insidious and far easier to conceal.

i_b_joshua

abdul
Feb 2, 2003, 05:20 PM
if u are worried about that the news u have is biased, which it seriously is from a non-us perspective then i advice you u to go to www.bbc.co.uk (sorry dont know how to add links yet) that is britain's tv company owned by the public by paying taxes. its unbiased with programmes like newsnight and hardtalk which ask the questions that we want to ask and see the politicans sweat. ive seen cnn and fox news the so called 'unbiased' news company both of them wreeeeeeeek!! and have stupid headlines like 'why the french hate us' when they dont they think with their brains thats all.

brogers
Feb 2, 2003, 06:31 PM
Well now, don't we have some interesting talk here. I go back to what I have always said. GWB is not going to send us into war for the heck of it, get oil money, avenge his father or whatever you want to insert here.

Who in the heck is Hans Blix anyway??? and do I gotta trust this guy over my President??? I think not.

And by the way, I and others in my company get some regular stories reported around here and we have seen some direct quotes get mutilated and make a story about one thing end up about something else. I took a class in college called "Mass Media and American Politics". The professor and the text book made no bones about the fact that mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal. I don't even call it a conspiracy....I call it fact.

One last thing.....With all the bashing going on around here, I'd like to think that I can bash the NY Times and not be considered insane. People don't trust the politicians and everything they say...GWB included....great. I damn sure don't trust half of what I read in the papers, especially not the Times.

ibjoshua
Feb 2, 2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by brogers
Who in the heck is Hans Blix anyway??? and do I gotta trust this guy over my President??? I think not.

Eeeuw! Grow up. Tell us why should we trust your nutcase puppet trigger-happy president?

i_b_joshua

Durandal7
Feb 2, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua


Eeeuw! Grow up. Tell us why should we trust your nutcase puppet trigger-happy president?

i_b_joshua

What are you, 10? Political discussions on this site are ridiculous. Take this thread for instance, it was all going fine until some immature user showed up and posted some nonesense. From here the thread will be a petty flame war. Then someone will get inspired to make another political thread and pretty soon Community Discussion and Current Events are littered with pointless threads with brilliant rebuttals along the lines of "Ewww, how can you like Bush?" or "France Sux"

My conclusion is that Community Discussion and Current Events have gone to hell so to speak. I will be restraining from posting in these areas due to the close-mindeness and immaturity that prevails.

brogers
Feb 2, 2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by i_b_joshua


Eeeuw! Grow up. Tell us why should we trust your nutcase puppet trigger-happy president?

i_b_joshua

First off, Bush is not a nutcase, nor is he a puppet, nor is he trigger happy. He is OUR President unless you live outside the USA. If you don't like him then that is great, but the fact remains....he is our President.

Secondly, I am grown up and my comment stands. We seem to want to believe somebody...heck, anybody over Bush. I say why should I nod my head and say "Well Blix must know everything there is, so Bush needs to stop." He has angenda too you know.

And lastly, make a case, argument or something other than spewing out garbbage. Durandal7 was right, but I won't turn this into a flame war. I just want to discuss politics.

Taft
Feb 2, 2003, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by brogers
Well now, don't we have some interesting talk here. I go back to what I have always said. GWB is not going to send us into war for the heck of it, get oil money, avenge his father or whatever you want to insert here.

Well you are allowed your opinion, but I don't have that much trust in my elected officials. Call me cynical, but after all of the political scandals and selfish actions from politicians over the years, I have precious little reason to trust ANY elected official 100%.

I am from Chicago, IL, possibly the most corrupt city in the US in regards to politics. How about Gov. Ryan with his license for bribes and his list of people who owed him favors? And the Daley machine? And the ridiculously corrupt fundraising system?

They are just humans with wants, desires and tendancies for corruption and abuse of power that the rest of us have.


Who in the heck is Hans Blix anyway??? and do I gotta trust this guy over my President??? I think not.

Nor do I. But I don't trust him any LESS than Bush, either. Like I said, they are all just humans.

The difference is that, in this case, Blix doesn't stand to gain from his actions, where I suspect Bush does. Also, Blix and his team are the only people I know of that have been in Iraq and actually seen the activities there. The best the US has is satellite surveillance.


And by the way, I and others in my company get some regular stories reported around here and we have seen some direct quotes get mutilated and make a story about one thing end up about something else. I took a class in college called "Mass Media and American Politics". The professor and the text book made no bones about the fact that mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal. I don't even call it a conspiracy....I call it fact.

And there's never been a politically motivated professor at a US university, huh? I've had a few very biased profs at school, both liberal and conservative.

I read the Times every day on the web, and don't notice an overwhelming bias in their news reporting. But then again I lean liberal.

I'd like to hear a list of news organizations that you consider to be objective and fair. Something tells me that I would highly disagree with you. But I probably wouldn't object to their news reporting (unless they blatantly editorialized in their news stories). Some liberal organizations (like Salon) do this, and thats the reason I'd not recommend them to a conservative. But most, the Times included, have more integreity than that.


One last thing.....With all the bashing going on around here, I'd like to think that I can bash the NY Times and not be considered insane. People don't trust the politicians and everything they say...GWB included....great. I damn sure don't trust half of what I read in the papers, especially not the Times.
I wouldn't consider you insane, but I would think you need a reality check. You'd be hard pressed to convince me that the Times took a few quotes (which either supported Bush or were neutral) and completely twisted them to say that Blix was against Bush's handling of the report.

Like I said, they have a great deal of journalistic integrity (which is more than I can say for a lot of news organizations). You don't win a zillion pulitzers by twisting quotes and lying.

Some of you may also point to the several editorial missteps the Times took last year. I will admit that this was something of a greivous error, but I don't think it should diminish the Times reputation in the long haul. Its just time for a new editor in cheif.

Taft

Taft
Feb 2, 2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7


What are you, 10? Political discussions on this site are ridiculous. Take this thread for instance, it was all going fine until some immature user showed up and posted some nonesense. From here the thread will be a petty flame war.

You wouldn't be talking about little ole me, now, would you? :D

There's a reason these things escalate. As soon as one person posts a remark about Bush being incompetant or the Times being biased and bought by the liberal, someone enivitably feels the need to respond. Often times that person is me.

Now the question is, when someone says something you strongly disagree with (or question the validity of), isn't it your responsibility to speak up and voice your dissenting opinion??

Even if these forums do turn into a politcal mud-slinging-fest, I think its alright. Its a great place to come and argue and express your opinions.

Taft

Thanatoast
Feb 2, 2003, 10:38 PM
"Who in the heck is Hans Blix anyway??? and do I gotta trust this guy over my President???"

considering hans blix is in charge of the weapons inspections in iraq, has actually been there and seen what's going on, and has been entrusted by the un to perform these duties, i'd say he's a more reliable source than the prez on this particular issue. especially since bush seems determined to start a war and is ignoring the advice of the entire world minus 8 nations on the matter.

brogers
Feb 3, 2003, 05:49 PM
Thanks Taft. That was what I call a great reply and good banter. We disagree on most everything around here, but that is OK.

I did not say though that the Times Lies and twist everything and in my humbe opinion, winning pulitzer prizes does not mean you don't have any bias. Also, I don't think there are any mainstream news organizations that don't lean a little to the left. Another example is a buddy of mine that works for a new network in my region. He is very liberal and boast about the fact that conservatives are few and far between at the station. I met several of them and they mock conservatives. This is a tiny example, but prevelant through out the mainstream media.

And by the way, the college professor was a liberal and not conservative. This was not end all be all for me, but the case studies we did and what I perseve as I watch and read and what my friends network has and on and on and on. In fact, I don't know anyone (personally) in the business of reporting news (mainstream) that is conservative. I just don't. Does not mean they are not there, I just can't seem to find any.

Lastly, I know who Hans Blix is, I just don't think he knows more than our intellegence community. Let's face it, he could be the one that gives the ultimate go-ahead for war...in a round about way. Doubt he wants to do that. Also, he is the one that will get nailed if he says no WMD were found and then they are used later to kill people. He is fence rider and I don't trust what he is saying 100%.

ibjoshua
Feb 4, 2003, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by Durandal7


What are you, 10? Political discussions on this site are ridiculous. Take this thread for instance, it was all going fine until some immature user showed up and posted some nonesense. From here the thread will be a petty flame war. Then someone will get inspired to make another political thread and pretty soon Community Discussion and Current Events are littered with pointless threads with brilliant rebuttals along the lines of "Ewww, how can you like Bush?" or "France Sux"

My conclusion is that Community Discussion and Current Events have gone to hell so to speak. I will be restraining from posting in these areas due to the close-mindeness and immaturity that prevails.

If you think political discussions are so ridiculous I'm really curious to know why you felt you had to chip in? I don't have a problem with it, just curious.

Well done in noting that my post was immature (though I thought I sounded more like a 16 yr old personally). It was intentional. My reply to brogers was written in the same spirit in which his/her original quote was made.
That is, immature, gung-ho, inflammatory and blunt.

Taft and Thanatoast have said it all again so I won't waste time going over it, but in summary, I have no reason to think Blix would lie to the international community and I have every reason to believe Bush would.

i_b_joshua