--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], MDixon6569@ wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 6/25/06 8:56:54 A.M. Central Daylight Time, > > jstein@ writes: > > > > Of course, he *did* let the inspectors in. Bush > > pulled them out even though--or actually, because-- > > they weren't finding any WMD, making nonsense of > > his excuse for the invasion. > > > > Bush has said several times publicly that Saddam > > wouldn't let in the inspectors, which is manifestly > > untrue. Has he been lying blatantly about something > > that's clearly on the public record, or is he just > > so unaware of what went on that he really *believes* > > what he says? > > > > > Judy as I recall, Saddam would let in the inspectors from time to > > time but every time he did, he threw every obstacle he could in > > the way of the inspectors while doing their jobs, making it > > difficult if not impossible to do. Blix and others often > > complained of having to wait outside of a building they wanted to > > inspect for hours and hours while Saddam's people moved things out > > of another side of the building. Also numerous road blocks and > > accidents were staged to prevent the inspectors from getting to > > their announced destination in timely matter. Saddam was letting > > in inspectors, but there was no cooperation once they began their > > jobs. > > He didn't make it easy for them, but they *were* getting > the job done nevertheless. And Saddam was not the only > party getting in their way--the Bush administration did > everything it could to sabotage the inspectors and > denigrate their work. > > They were in Iraq, doing their job, right up until Bush > pulled them out so he could invade. They were *furious*.
>From a March 20, 2003, column by Joe Conason in Salon (shortly after the invasion): Nobody is paying much attention to Hans Blix except the BBC, which reported his criticism yesterday of the Bush administration's "impatience" with the inspection effort. He strongly suggested that the U.S. had expected no cooperation from Iraq when inspections commenced and that "you would have a clash from the beginning." Instead, he noted, "We had made a rapid start. We did not have any obstacles from the Iraqi side in going anywhere. They gave us prompt access and we were in a great many places all over Iraq." As for the intentions behind Resolution 1441, Blix added: "I somewhat doubt that when [the Security Council] got the resolution last November they really intended to give under three-and-a-half months for inspections." Yesterday, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon has prepared an elaborate mission to find and test suspected chemical and biological weapons sites. Military sources told Judith Miller that they have a list of between 300 and 1,400 sites. Apparently the information to be used by the Pentagon teams wasn't disclosed to Hans Blix. Indeed, he told the BBC that his inspectors had been dispatched on several pointless excursions by American intelligence. Would the Bush administration have withheld useful information and intentionally sent the U.N. inspectors elsewhere? Then when the U.N. teams found nothing, the inspection process could be declared a failure. "I'm very curious to see if they [the U.S.] find something in Iraq," said Blix drily. > > For Bush to say Saddam wouldn't let them in is simply a lie. > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Check out the new improvements in Yahoo! Groups email. http://us.click.yahoo.com/6pRQfA/fOaOAA/yQLSAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
