From: Adam Flinton 

Gene McAloon wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:39:50 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:
>
>
>>>or proactive cooperation", Mr Blix replied, "Yes.""
>>
>>Yes, so? Progress was not the criteria that he was operating under, it was
>>supposed to be complete and willing full cooperation.
>
>
> "Substantive progress" and/or "proactive
cooperation" is exactly what is
meant
> by willing and full, complete cooperation. That is exactly what Blix got.
>
> Of course Blix subsequently has practically called Bush a liar and that
explains
> the spin the Bush people are pushing to discredit him and naturally enough it
> also explains your similar spin. But of course it is obvious to the whole
world
> now that Blix has credibility and Bush none. Who anywhere in the world
doesn't
> now believe Bush to be a liar?
>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/hardtalk/3893683.stm

Interesting read.

Some bits are interesting:

"Tim Sebastian: "At what point did you tell Tony Blair that his
intelligence was defective?"

Hans Blix: "In February telephone conversations with him I told him we
were not impressed with the intelligence."

TB:" So you said it was wrong?"

HB: "I said I was not impressed"

TS: "When was that?"

HB: "It was on 20th February 2003. I said to Mr Blair that we needed
evidence and we did not have evidence and I did say, and I described in the
book I published, that it would be paradoxical if they went in with
hundreds and thousands of men and found nothing. And he said "no,
no" we are convinced, all the intelligence services are sure, even the
Egyptian intelligence service tells us so, so I think he was quite
convinced it was in good faith but it was wrong."

TS: "If you were telling Tony Blair the intelligence was wrong, in
essence, his intelligence from MI6 was wrong and that he didn't change his
assessment do you still think he acted in good faith?"

HB: "I think what he should have done would have been to ask for more
inspections. But the Americans had a time limit, some time in March."
"

& some are alarming:

"TS: "In the original intelligence that was presented to the
Prime Minister it contained caveats and questions marks. When it was
presented to Parliament and the public, those question marks and caveats
had gone. Is that still acting in good faith?"

HB: "No I think they should have preserved the question marks."

TS: "It's not in good faith?"

HB: "I think it was a spin that was not acceptable. They put
exclamation marks where there had been question marks and I think that is
hyping, a spin, that leads the public to the wrong conclusions."

TS: "It's a distortion?

HB: "Yes a spin is a distortion, the public doesn't get the whole
truth." "

Hang on.....converting ? to ! is not "sexing up????"

Compare :

"They can launch WMD in 45 minutes?"

with

"They can launch WMD in 45 minutes!"



Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5