Blix: "US is misquoting my Iraq report"

According to the article: “Dr [Hans] Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin 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 other countries to prevent them from being interviewed. Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad. Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda.”

US is misquoting my Iraq report, says Blix, Judith Miller and Julia Preston
Sydney Morning Herald, 1 February 2003

Days after delivering a broadly negative report on Iraq’s cooperation with international inspectors, Hans Blix 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.

In an interview on Wednesday, Dr Blix, the United Nations chief weapons inspector, seemed determined to dispel any impression that his report was intended to support the United States’ campaign to build world support for a war to disarm Saddam Hussein.

“Whatever we say will be used by some,” Dr 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.”

**Dr Blix took issue with what he said were US Secretary of State Colin 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 other countries to prevent them from being interviewed.

Nor had he any reason to believe, as President George Bush charged in his State of the Union speech, that Iraqi agents were posing as scientists, or that his inspection agency had been penetrated by Iraqi agents and that sensitive information might have been leaked to Baghdad.

Finally, he said, he had seen no persuasive indications of Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda**. “There are other states where there appear to be stronger links,” such as Afghanistan, Dr Blix said. “It’s bad enough that Iraq may have weapons of mass destruction.”

Russia has also denied any knowledge of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda extremists. The Russian Foreign Minister, Igor Ivanov, said on Thursday that “so far, neither Russia nor any other country has information about Iraq’s ties with al-Qaeda”. “If we receive such information we will analyse it,” he said. “Statements made so far are not backed by concrete documents and concrete facts.”

Meanwhile the founder of a militant Islamist group in northern Iraq has denied US reports that his organisation was the secret link between Baghdad and al-Qaeda. Mullah Krekar, a refugee in Norway, said Saddam was his foe, and the Kurdish Islamist said he had no contact with al-Qaeda. He said that he could prove that his Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) organisation, which controls a sliver of land in northern Iraq, had “no contact with al-Qaeda, with Osama [bin Laden], with Saddam Hussein, with Iran or Iraq”. Ansar’s role is at the heart of the US’s latest attempt to demonstrate a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

I watched the report by Blix et al., as did countless millions I guess; I didn’t feel it was broadly negative, what I heard was that things were progressing and the inspections were successful. However, more cooperation from the Iraqi administration would be needed to fulfil UN requirements.

As I flicked over the fox news (after hearing the report live on BBC world) I was amazed, well not really to see flashing banners on the base of the screen with captions like “Blix says bomb Iraq sooner rather than later” well words to that effect. It appears that selective hearing is catching before long CNN was doing it too; it’s a childs game to paint someone’s words the colour you want to see them in.

Now Blix’s unsaid comments are set in stone and it’s going to take several new UN resolutions to the clear it up. Meanwhile the green light has been given from the news agencies to go ahead with the bombing, after all we have full UN backing on this.

[QUOTE]
"Whatever we say will be used by some," Dr 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."
[/QUOTE]

That statement hardly adds up to what they state Blix is saying or has stated,this is one of the best job`s of putting words in another persons mouth that i have read for a long time,ironic really when you consider the nature of the piece.Really shabby reporting,anyone in Sydney with minds of there own,like me,are going to be disapointed when they look for the substance in this piece.

Hardly, but then again I think you subscribe to the Fox News propoganda spin on every story, as Thap has described in his post. Were people also putting words into mouth of the IAEA head inspector? - IAEA head says Iraq not in material breach](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89707)

BraveHeart, Sorry i don't really understand what you mean. Do you mean that the US did not misinterpret Blix's words ? When Blix stated he would like more Iraqi cooperation, you do not believe that the US used that opportunity to argue that Iraq was cheating and 'time was running out'? (Just trying to pinpoint exactly where we differ here, that's all).

Thap:~) Thanks for sharing your input. Yes i agree Blix has (repeatedly) called for more Iraqi cooperation. For some, that has equated to the fact that Iraq is cheating; there has been the allegation that Iraqi agents have been posing as scientists, and of course Bush's repeated assertion that 'time is running out'.
>>Now Blix’s unsaid comments are set in stone and it’s going to take several new UN resolutions to the clear it up.<<
True.

Quite simply,i was saying that the item written by those two women is an exercise in making something out of nothing,a shameless piece really.

What is shameless is the kind of reporting Fox News etc spew out, and which you seem to subscribe to? This report is in line with what the IAEA head inspector said -IAEA head says Iraq not in material breach](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89707).

But you conveniantely missed that fact…

OK M,just this once,i do not watch FOX,why? because i like news,not propoganda.I have not conveniantly forgotten anything,in fact if you had read all my posts you would know that.If you have a problem with Fox,dont watch it and kindly stop presuming what i do or dont do.

Thanks for your reply BraveHeart.

>>...making something out of nothing...<<
Fair enough, but i think that is the same claim that Blix is levelling at the US admin. for manipulating some of his words. The NY Times ran an article regarding this story, in a two-hour interview with Blix in New York. (Article ran two days ago, it's accessible via the Times website, but one has to register for it first). According to the article, Blix:

"...challenged President Bush's argument that military action is needed to avoid the risk of a Sept. 11-style attack by terrorists wielding nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."

Well millions upon millions of Americans watch Fox News and right-wing propoganda like it, so one has to get a feel of what the average American is exposed to (and believes). Look at the detailed and factual replies by Nadia and Thap - can you counter anything they say (like you couldn’t in that Pilger thread when I challenged you on the facts)? No. All you can do is clutch at straws, but come back with no facts to counter the facts. The fact of the case is that Blix is saying nothing that the IAEA inpector is saying - IAEA head says Iraq not in material breach](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89707).

The world is far less dangerous today than it was during the cold war, he said, when the Soviet Union and the United States threatened each other with thousands of nuclear-tipped missiles. On balance, "nuclear non-proliferation has been a success story," he said. "The world has made great progress."

Nadia that is all i can find that Blix actually said,the rest is spin,by the reporter,the same as the piece from the Sydney Morning Herald.You see i try to just read what Blix actually says,not what the reporter says,thats how i get facts from stories.

I have seen loads of interviews with Blix and have heard what he has said,he is so non-partisan and completely non controversial,the story in the SMH,in particular,is taking a simple statement by Blix and spun it around to suit their own purpose.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Braveheart:

You see i try to just read what Blix actually says,not what the reporter says,thats how i get facts from stories.
[/QUOTE]

Have you heard Blix saying that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution, that he is operating under?

Blix refutes Bush claims](http://www.dispatch.co.za/2003/02/01/foreign/GCLAIMS.HTM) Dispatch Online, South Africa 01 Feb 03

NEW YORK – Chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix yesterday challenged a series of accusations Washington has lobbed at Iraq, saying inspection teams had found nothing to back them up, in an interview with the New York Times. Blix said that the progress report he delivered to the UN Security Council on Monday – in which he determined that Iraq was defying international demands to disarm – did not justify going to war. But he acknowledged that “diplomacy needs to be backed by force sometimes, and inspections need to be backed by pressure”.

Blix also told the newspaper he had not seen any hard evidence to suggest that the Iraqi regime was linked to the al-Qaeda terrorist network, as President George W Bush charged in his State of the Union address on Tuesday. “There are other states where there appear to be stronger links” to al-Qaeda than in Iraq, Blix said, citing Afghanistan as an example. **Blix denied that inspectors had found Baghdad was concealing and moving outlawed materials to avoid inspections, as Secretary of State Colin Powell had said, or that Iraqi secret agents were posing as scientists, as Bush had charged. **

“The world has made great progress,” Blix said, noting that the world was safer now than it was during the Cold War. “I think it would be terrible if this comes to an end by armed force, and I wish for this process of disarmament through the peaceful avenue of inspections,” he added. – Sapa-AFP

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *

Have you heard Blix saying that Iraq is in material breach of the UN resolution, that he is operating under?
[/QUOTE]

This shows haow little you know about his remit,he is not even allowed to call a material breach,only to report what has happened,it is for the Un sec council,to call a material breach.

So i was not even waiting for him to do that,where you?

He is allowed to give his opinion in this regard, as did the IAEA head inspector:-
IAEA head says Iraq not in material breach](http://www.gupistan.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=89707)

What you said above is exactly what i said to you,so i think we may be going around in circles here.
I have heard them and i know what they said and have made my own mind up regarding both.Do you really think its gonna work,trying to convince me that even if the IAEA head did not say anything except to be given more time,i should disregard what Blix said.Chemical and biological weapons are WMD,just as nuclear weapons are.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Braveheart: *

Do you really think its gonna work,trying to convince me that even if the IAEA head did not say anything except to be given more time...
[/QUOTE]

He said more than that, like this:-

"We are not going to say that this is a material breach unless we see a gross violation of the resolution...

You asked for actual words, and now you have them. :)

"We are not going to say that this is a material breach unless we see a gross violation of the resolution. But even then it is for the Security Council to pronounce itself on this issue."

As i have said before,these things can be spun till the cows come home and he is only one half of the team.Now i dont think you and i are ever going to agree on this M,or on much else,if the past is anything to go by,so why dont we stop knocking ourselves out trying to do it on this.

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Braveheart:

he is only one half of the team...
[/QUOTE]

Yes, somehow I thought you would say that. :)

You asked for actual words, and you got them, but you did not like those words. That sort of explains why the western media has also largely ignored this half of the story, and chose to misinterpret the words of Blix as well.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Malik73: *
You asked for actual words, and you got them, but you did not like those words. That sort of explains why the western media has also largely ignored this half of the story, and chose to misinterpret the words of Blix as well.
[/QUOTE]

Braveheart: seems as if Malik only likes to print part of the words and gets rid of the part he doesn't like by doing this: "..." The second sentence of the statement that you quoted (i.e. "But even then it is for the Security Council to pronounce itself on this issue." ) is about as clear as you can get.

As to the world being far less dangerous than it was during the Cold War, I fail to see how this relates to how the world deals with Iraq and Saddam today. The Cold War is over because the US and its allies won it. And yes, the world is a safer place because of it. Too bad the US does not get the credit it deserves for the 50 year foreign policy that led to this outcome. For anyone to interpret Blix's statement that we are safer today than we were during the Cold War as meaning we should not worry about Saddam and Iraq is quite a stretch.