I don't much like the tone of the article either, and its generally inconsistent with the tenor of an interview I heard this week with Blix on NPR (where he was somewhat critical but quite measured). It could well be because the whole piece was cobbled to gether by a reporter from various statements in his talk.
In the interview I heard, for example, Blix said:
(a) He is sure that the inspectors would never have been allowed back into Iraq without the U.S. military build-up.
(b) He had no reason to think that the U.S. did not believe in the intelligence it was providing him.
(c) As inspections began, he too thought that Iraq probably had some WMD.
(d) But, as his inspectors checked site after site "pinpointed" by U.S. intelligence -- to no result, and conducted many interviews, etc., he began to doubt that any were present.
(e) He recognized that, as Rumsfeld once said -- absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. He acknowleged that he could not certify that no WMD were present -- the proof of destuction was lacking.
(f) To the extent he criticized U.S. officials, it was for what he called a "lack of critical thinking" -- i.e. the evidence on the ground never changed their opinions in the slightest.
He also noted the constant pressure to make mountains out of every little thing they found, and said that he was most offended by the implicit suggestions that his team was trying to downplay the evidence and/or weren't finding WMD because they didn't want too.
[The basic thrust being -- "we're professionals with no axe to grind, you can't say that about the U.S. administration.]
I don't understand your outrage, club. Let's look at the bit you cite:
"CHICAGO (Reuters) - The invasion of Iraq has polarized the Middle East and may have worsened the threat of terrorism, former United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix charged on Thursday."
The first clause is certainly true, and the second clause is at least reaonably arguable.
I also don't see how you can say: "the fucking nerve".
He is assuredly far better qualified to comment on that situation than anyone posting here. Is he not entitled to express his view?
What did he do wrong?
Did Blix fail to do his job honestly and well? Did he somehow miss vast stocks of WMD that we found (or any stocks -- save for a few empty artillery shells)? Did he NOT inspect the sites that U.S. intelligence gave him?
I thinkt hat his statements can be viewed as fairly measured when you consider that this guy is a senior, distinguished man who's spent the better part of his career busting his hump on issues of disarmament in international service -- and who was tremendously disrespected, indeed nearly reviled, for the better part of two years by political hacks and ignorant jingoists here in the U.S.
S_A_M
{edited -- mostly typos]
