US was 'high on military' ahead of Iraq war, says Hans Blix

[sabra]

Source: UK telegraph

The Bush administration was "high on military" in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told the Chilcott Inquiry.

Dr Blix spoke of his disquiet at the US national security strategy published in September 2002, which set out the White House's belief in its right to launch pre-emptive attacks.

He told the official inquiry into the war against Saddam Hussein's regime that he was convinced a second UN resolution was needed to authorise military action.

He said: "The US in 2002, that time you refer to, threw it (the UN process) overboard. I think they were high on military at the time. They said, 'we can do it'."

Dr Blix said he thought UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed four months before the March 2003 invasion, gave Saddam Hussein the ''chance for a new start''.

...

The former weapons inspector compared attempts to deal with Iraq's supposed WMD in 2002-03 with current efforts to stop Tehran's ambitions to become a nuclear power.

"We have economic pressure against Iran. I do not think that is illegal. I think the use of force against Iran today would be illegal," he said.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7912684/US-was-high-on-military-ahead-of-Iraq-war-says-Hans-Blix.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Soylent Brice]

2. K&R

high on military and jaysus.

remember, bush thought he was doing the work of god.

Bush, Gog and Magog
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush

[on point]

3. Bush et al are War Criminals, pure and simple

I am surprised Hans Blix didn't state the obvious: Bush and Tony Blair rushed to attack Iraq before the UN was able to come back and say "there are no weapons of mass destruction" and totally undercut any any potential legal rational to attack Iraq.

[Oregone]

4. I wonder how much of the high from Afghanistan was based on reality

Was the US really as successful there as was being reported, or was news tailored to make Americans more friendly to the notion of future war? Even if propaganda wasn't ruling the day, did military commanders on the ground in Afghanistan actually understand their progress in the war, as it relates to the big picture? Did some merely think they were being successful against an enemy that disappeared into the shadows at will, to live and fight another day? The picture painted today is that not only can the US not figure out where to fight them, but how to do so efficiently. Back then, it was all bombs and bang and hurray; how much was pro-war fiction, and how much was irrational exuberance due to misunderstanding the nature of war with those geo-political conditions?

Everyone cites Bush's fuckup at Tora Bora, and failure to end the war early by shifting focus to Iraq.....but *really*....what was the reality, when you throw out propaganda and Afghanistan ignorance? And no, Im not apologizing for Bush's inability to finish the job, but questioning current perception of history (that it could even been so easily finished) based perhaps on potential faulty evidence (originating with the Bush Admin itself often).

I understand people have come out, wrote books and what not, about how negligence blew opportunities to win the war. How do they even know it was winnable at that time, fuck-ups aside.

[defendandprotect]

5. Surprised they didn't kill this guy . . . !!!

[saigon68]

6. Tony Blair Corrupt Idiot

[daleo]

7. It's like a drug

It sure seems that way. It's the lust for power, I suppose.