liberals....

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by dissention

I told you repeatedly last night that I would tackle your lies today because I was tired. If that's not good enough for you, tough tacos. It may be the truth as you best remember it, but it isn't the truth according to the facts.

Here are some quotes from Bix when he was reporting to the UN -they indicate that although SH was cooperating with access to sites, he was once again not meeting his burden of proving the destruction of the WMD, which according the bolded text, Blix indicates SH was not doing:

Blix's report hinted at undisclosed weapons but provided no fresh evidence. In carefully modulated, neutral language, Blix said he found circumstantial evidence that Iraq could hold a devastating arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

Iraq provided a "workable environment" for inspections and did not directly refuse access to any weapons site, but he also described some "disturbing incidents and harassments" such as anti-inspection demonstrations.

The meat of the report was a list of Iraqi weapons the U.N. team had not been able to find or the destruction of which could not be verified.

Blix disclosed, for example, that there is a "discrepancy of 6,500 bombs" between the number of chemical weapons explosives Iraq admitted to having, and that Saddam has accounted for.

"The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons," he said.

Blix noted that the 122 mm chemical rockets inspectors found "could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets ... points to the issue of several thousand ... chemical rockets that are unaccounted for."

Also, according to Blix, "Iraq has provided little evidence for production of (8,500 liters of anthrax and other biological toxins) and no convincing evidence for its destruction."

He added, "There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained after the declared destruction date."

On the issue of whether Saddam was attempting to build nuclear weapons, U.N. atomic weapons official Mohamed ElBaradei said investigations were under way despite some interference by Iraqi officials. He said, however, that inspectors needed more time.

"We should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program," he said.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...l/iraq/1753597
_______________________________________________________________

Here is another article with quotations from Blix's report to the UN:


Monday, 27 January, 2003, 17:34 GMT
Inspections report: Key points
Chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix and Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the UN's nuclear agency, presented their crucial report on the progress of weapons inspections in Iraq to the UN Security Council on 27 January.
Here are the key points:

Statement by Dr Blix:

Iraq has provided co-operation with regards to the inspection process, but it still needs to co-operate in matters of substance.

Iraq has provided access to all sites inspectors have wanted to inspect and the environment has been "workable".

There was a "sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time."

However, Iraq appeared "not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it."

Iraq has failed to comply with the inspectors' request to deploy a U2 plane to carry out aerial imagery and surveillance.

There have been recent incidents of harassment and demonstrations against the inspectors - these are unlikely to have occurred without the initiative of the Iraqi authorities. Iraq is aware allegations that the inspections serve intelligence purposes are untrue.

" Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance of the disarmament which was demanded of it "

Dr Hans Blix

Iraq's 7 December, 2002, weapons declaration still leaves questions unanswered.

Iraq has failed to account for 6,500 missing chemical warfare bombs.

Iraq said VX nerve gas it produced was never turned into weapons - Unmovic (the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission) has information which conflicts with this account.

Iraq has failed to account for supplies of anthrax it said it had produced and later destroyed. There are "strong indications" that Iraq produced more anthrax than it admitted and might still have some stocks.

Iraq has imported banned items, including 300 rocket engines, as recently as December, 2002, which could be used in a missile programme.

Regarding the recent discovery of undeclared documents on nuclear development in an Iraqi scientist's home, "there can be no sanctuaries for proscribed items".

Inspectors have requested 11 private interviews with Iraqi scientists, all of which have been turned down.

Statement by Dr ElBaradei:

Iraq's 2002 declaration did not answer questions which have been outstanding since inspectors were barred from returning to Iraq in 1998.

Good progress has been made during the latest inspections.

No prohibited nuclear activities have been identified during the inspections, but Baghdad needs to be more "pro-active" during further inspections.

"We have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons programme since the elimination of the programme in the 1990s."

Inspectors "should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program".

"Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course."

Another "few months" for inspections "would be a valuable investment because they could help us avoid a war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/americas/2698857.stm

____________________________________________________________

So, while Iraq was giving Blix and his team access, SH was not meeting his burden of providing the proof that these weapons and other materials had been destroyed. Blix says this repeatedly. So, I think it cannot be said SH was cooperating 100% when he was not providing the requested evidence Blix was calling for?

In any event, my earlier point was not that SH was not providing access to Blix, it was that when the UN decided to send the inspectors back in, SH initially refused to allow them access to his palaces. THe UN balked at this and noted SH's palaces were more than homes, they were potential storage sites and war rooms and could contain important documents. SH caved on this initial demand when the UN refuted it and he say the 200,000 plus troops amassing on his borders. I think that SH initial refusal to allow access to his palaces indicates he was up to his old games again.

I am unsure how that makes me a liar and I would appreciate a retraction