He said he believed they had no WMD; he said that the evidence, however, didn't support his belief any more than it denied his belief. Quoting from late January, 2003:
"These reports do not contend that weapons of mass destruction remain in Iraq, but nor do they exclude that possibility. They point to a lack of evidence and inconsistencies which raise question marks which must be straightened out if weapons dossiers are to be closed and confidence is to arise. They deserve to be taken seriously by Iraq, rather than being brushed aside as evil machinations of UNSCOM....
"The (Iraqi) document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi air force between 1983 and 1998, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tons. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for....
"I turn to biological weapons. I mention the issue of anthrax to the council on previous occasions, and I come back to it as it is an important one. Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 liters of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991.
"Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction. There are strong indications that Iraq produced more anthrax than it declared and that at least some of this was retained over the declared destruction date. It might still exist."
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/27/sprj.irq.transcript.blix/He argued for more time for inspections in order to clear up the issues; but he was honest with the facts, and didn't argue for presence of WMD when the only valid statement was that their absence hadn't been demonstrated, nor did he argue for their absence when the only valid statement was that their presence hadn't been demonstrated. The evidence he had supported the claim that Saddam had misrepresented the true state of affairs, intentionally or unintentionally in any given instance being beside the point. He clearly believed that the issues could be resolved, and should be resolved without aggression.
Nothing much changed in regards to additional documentation or the details of Blix's reports by 3/03.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
