Charlie Rose

john st.clair  03/27/2008 05:20 AM Report

mass disruction.....600,000 dead plus or minus

Dave Levy  10/26/2007 08:35 AM Report

I recall when Hans Blix was critical of the UN invading Iraq, giving the same reason that Saddam should get more time allowing the inspectors to do their work. I also recall that Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq and closely supervised their activities beforehand and afterwards upon returning. It was obvious to me that Blix really was motivated by a desire to avoid an invasion. I cannot believe he actually thought at the time that the inspections would work, considering Saddams intransigence for a decade. Saddam as we know never adhered to any of the UN resolutions. He had every opportunity to account for the destruction (or removal) of the WMD, and did not. He purposely wanted the world to believe he did in fact have those weapons (witness the coalition's use of protective suits). Had Saddam possessed WMD, isn't it probable he would have used them?

So, we benfitted both ways. Now, Blix is telling everyone that our (US) aircraft carrier (3) groups in the Persian Gulf is counter productive, provoking Iran into more nationalism and obstinence. Yet, Iran has (like Saddam) violated 2 UNSC resolutions, continues on it's path to produce nuclear weapons according to our intelligence, and has threatened with total destruction a country in the area, as well as boasting of it's ability to launch 11,000 missiles (already in place and targeted). Blix, as with Iraq, is simple and naive. His formula hasn't and won't work to change Iran's direction. If we (the US) back off, it will have the opposite effect, emboldening Iran's mad mullahs and leaders. It seems to me that Charlie Rose attracts these types for his interviews, due to his own biases against US foreign policy, so evident in many of his interviews. The reporters he interviewed should stick to news, and not try to make it, helped by Rose's subtle

statements.