Hasn't the USA refused to pay its UN contribution for some years now. If that is the case then you none of your tax dollars would have gone to Blix.

Funnily enough, the U.S. paid up their U.N. dues not long after Sept 11th. It states clearly that Blix is basing his judgements on what has happened since the war - ie no WMDs uncovered. He wasn't given time to prove this himself (and to be fair Iraq/Saddam did not help themselves by the lack cooperation). Anyway, when was this war ever about WMDs ?

Precisely.
It was about a member state refusing to comply with sanctions imposed by the body. Bush, like his father, is a bit more of an Internationalist than his critics give him credit for. This also explains the pay-up before the prosecution of the War effort. That fact that many others have chosen to sit WWIV out, does not mean that Bush (and his state secretary) wouldn't welcome credible participation.

Otherwise, what would the point of the UN be? Surely NGO's would accomplish it's non-security related missions with a greater ROI, and greater accountability. Why? People who are about 'power' tend to gravity to one body, - the former - and people who are about "fight the power" (i.e. credible social justice) the latter.

Not convinced that the U.N. sanctions were the main reason for the war either, but they were certainly less of a red herring than the WMD case. I think you are right about Bush's internationalism Art. I think it will be a bit more evident in the coming months, although I think circumstances will be forcing his hand a bit.
K, I take it you will want a refund from Bush for getting you all het up about WMDs, then delivering nothing but an expensive military operation in the desert. Unless, of course, you are happy about the outcome in a purely altruistic way, and think that it is worth every cent ?

Bobby, do you seriously believe that the Bush administration 'knew' (and I say this with the idea that you never know if and when they will find WMD) that there were no weapons? I mean, did a single anti-war person claim lack of WMD as a reason against war? Did one international organization whom you trust, say the UN, ever say that Saddam didn't have these weapons? It was up to Saddam to prove he didn't have these weapons. Did he do that? Or did he let the world believe he did have them (and certainly might've) and forced our hand towards war? I love how people, especially those who generally lean left but found themselves supporting the war in Iraq, have jumped on this lack of WMD issue. The funniest part is the relative silence from the left's leaders on this. They don't want to look stupid should WMD be found tomorrow.

From yesterday's BOTW:

Meanwhile, the Associated Press reports Hans Blix has a new (for him) theory: He "believes that Iraq destroyed most of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago, but kept up the appearance that it had them to deter a military attack."

"I'm certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all, almost, of what they had in the summer of 1991," Blix tells the Australian Broadcast Corp. "I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, 'Beware of the Dog,' without having a dog."

Of course, if Blix is right, doesn't this mean that CLINTON LIED!!!! in 1998 when he said Saddam had weapons of mass destruction? Well, not really. Clinton did exactly what President Bush did: He assumed Saddam was being truthful when he behaved as if he had weapons of mass destruction--an entirely reasonable supposition, given that he had used such weapons to commit mass murder in the past.

Bush's political opponents are now arguing, in effect, that Saddam got a bum rap because he was only bluffing, and that this somehow means he should have been left in power so he could murder thousands of Iraqis using weapons of light destruction.

Now, Kashei, remember;
“When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom…”

Let’s remember where, exactly, the left got it in it’s head that the war was about finding WMD. That would have been watching Powell’s presentation to the SC, wouldn’t it? Same place everyone on the right did.

If you listened closely, however, you were constantly reminded that these (WMD) programs were violations of security council agreements, and that that was the reasoning behind the war; enforcement of sanctions. But that hardly resonated as sexily as "stopping Saddam from getting the Bomb" So most people - on both sides- logged that away as 'the reason', and went on about their life.

Saddam didn't fully cooperate with the UN inspections from when they started through the Clinton administration and up until The US started gearing up for war and massing troops on his border. At that point he was ready to fully cooperate and stopped playing cat and mouse games. At this time he often declared that Iraq no longer had any weapons of mass destruction and welcomed the UN inspectors and even the CIA to check things out. But by then Bush had long since made up his mind that we were going to war and nothing short of Iraq peacefully surrendering and handing over Saddam was going to change that.

Nice job getting alarmingnews online!

So back to Blix. What about the "Witch Hunt" analogy Blix uses to describe Bush:

Comparing the two countries to medieval witch-hunters, Blix said the British and U.S. governments convinced themselves Iraq posed a threat based on evidence that was later discredited -- including forged documents about alleged attempts to buy uranium for nuclear weapons.

"In the Middle Ages when people were convinced there were witches they certainly found them. This is a bit risky," Blix said.
(CNN)

I wrote a reply on my site: witches do not exist.

Given that there were other, far more credible, justifications for the war, I never really understood why the WMD card was played so heavily.
Especially where Blair was concerned, but I guess Bush too, I always thought that it was going to come back and haunt them. At the time K, I gave them the benefit of the doubt - I assumed that they were making assessments on relaible intelligence reports.
Liked the comments about witch-hunts. It is surprising that all they have managed to cobble together regarding WMDs is a few dodgy documents.

Oh, no, Slash - I'll not have that. They most certainly are witches.

Said someone else: "The greatet trick the devil ever played..."

Witches not existing was pure sarcasm. Bush also laid waste to the growing sentiment on the Left in recent decades that evil does not exist. The demolition of religion contributes to this. People are not good or evil, they say. They just need help - rehab, gov't money, emotional support, friends.

Apply that to Saddam exactly one year ago. Where would we be now? ... approaching Halloween where witches indeed are fantasies.

Who says witches don't exist? I've got a pinch of eye of newt and a black cauldron that says different.

Bingo!! Great point.

This post may be the most asinine thing I've ever read in the blogosphere that I've ever read.

Explain to me why you don't want the (much greater amount of) tax dollars Donald Rumsfeld has spent skipping around "looking" for them?

I got a nice quick little post out of it, so thanks.

http://www.marcbrazeau.blogspot.com/2003_09_14_marcbrazeau_archive.html#106402951227488810

Idiot!

Of course, this is only about money. Tell you what - from now on we'll always go for the cheaper alternative regarding all of your beloved entitlement programs. We'll always cut back when you want to fund entitlement programs for your revered illegal aliens, islamofascists and welfare queens.

It is too easy to vote here. We really, really need some kind of intellegance test to keep these pathetic dullards from voting.

The funniest part of Marc's post on my post is his comment that 'I could have told you they weren't there' regarding the WMD. I can't imagine why they didn't consult you on that, Marc. Did Wolfowitz and Condoleeza not get your memo?

K,

He is a direct result of putting computers on the short bus. They'd be better used put in a monkey cage.

What generation of incest are you Marky?

My, my, my such angry little hornets.

1) 'I could have told you they weren't there' was a joke, though it's not clear that you understood it as such. I'm glad you thought it was funny.

2) Mssr. Redneck, where on my site did you find any evidence that entitlement programs, illegal aliens, islamofascists or welfare queens were beloved to me? In regards to my feelings on Islamofascists, if you had read even one post up you'd have seen that I reprinted Karol's post on the failure of a US anti-war group to get behind the democracy movement in Iran. It's clear from the post that I find that reprehensible and that I have done what little I can by posting material on my blog.

3) Again to Mssr. Redneck, I fail to see how my failure to get worked into a rabid froth in the run up to war because I was skeptical, indeed dismissive of the pile of horseshit that the Administration was pushing on WMD's makes me an "idiot". In fact, in light of the absense of WMD's it seems to me that those who were chowing down mightily on that pile of horse shit are the idiots. Nor does the fact that I didn't think their were WMD's and there weren't make me a supporter of Islamofascists. I don't see how the fact that you believed that crap (and may continue to believe) makes you more opposed to said IF's.

4) Karol, et al, No one has answered my question. Why do take exception with the tax dollars that were spent on Blix's search dollars wasted and the tax dollars spent by Rumsfeld to be money well spent?

5) Mssr. Redneck, yes I am addressing you as 'Mssr' because I think that it will piss you off and I think that's hilarious. It's a habit I picked up from a conservative little rag known as 'The Economist'. You might think about picking it up once in a while. You might learn something.

ps. see you on the short bus, buddy.

Well Marc, Hans Blix believed that Iraq had weapons. Most of the world did. Many still do. I'm not entirely convinced that we didn't attack too late, that the weapons are already gone and in the hands that those who seek to hurt us. Donald Rumsfeld wasn't hired for the specific purpose of seeking Iraq's WMD. Hans Blix was. To hear him assert that there weren't any weapons, and to have him sound as if 'duh, all reasonable people knew along' is reason for me to demand my money back.

Don't think Blix is saying "duh" or whatever. Don't think anyone doubted that Iraq had WMDs at one point, and certainly, had it not been for sanctions, Saddam would have happily built more. The only thing that Blix has said is that it seems that they were actually destroyed.

Karol, fair enough.