Blix vs SawyerYesterday (Wednesday) Hans Blix appeared on Good Morning America, and an amazing colloquy ensued. It seems that Mr. Blix, famous lover of President Bush and all things American (NOT!), is more supportive of the American President and his veracity than Ms. Sawyer is. She tried and tried to get Hans to accuse Bush of lying to the UN, the American people, anyone at all, but he wouldn't, quite, say that. He pointed out that Saddam Hussein certainly acted like a dictator who was guilty of craving, building, storing, and actually using weapons of mass destruction.
DIANE SAWYER: So your hunch is they won't find anything [weapons of mass destruction]?Sawyer tried to get Blix to accuse the administration of lying about the situation in Iraq, but all she got was this:
HANS BLIX: Well, I shouldn't have any hunches really.
SAWYER: Oh, have one. Have one. You can afford one now.
BLIX: The more time that passes without anything being found, the more I think we should begin to ask ourselves, why did they [the Iraqi regime] behave as they did during the '90s? Because they certainly behaved in a manner that seemed ? denial of access, et cetera. They changed the numbers also.
BLIX: Why was ? yes. Yes, I think you are right, but this is my first hunch. I'm not a psychologist, but I think so. I think that Saddam Hussein figured himself to be an emperor of Mesopotamia, a Nebuchadnezzar, and that he felt that 'these inspectors are imposters, little creepies around me, and I won't let them go one inch more than the Security Council resolution say, which I accepted. So if they want to go in with five people rather than four, which I've accepted, then no.' Otherwise it's very difficult to explain some of the things they did, you know.
SAWYER: Did the Bush administration tell the truth?I can't find the entire transcript yet, but the rest of the interview was similar. Sawyer, like most American far-left ideologues, is seeking to paint our President as a lying, scheming, warmonger. The editorial in the piece on ABC's website I linked to above also seeks to portray the interview in the light most unfavorable to Bush. That's not an ideologue, but a major news organization shading the truth. Mr. Blix wouldn't quite play along, but he gave them enough grist to support a piece that follows the party line. It is a sad state of affairs when our news outlets stoop to this kind of yellow journalism. It is no wonder that they are losing viewers the way they are. The morning after they do a puff piece on Hillary Clinton, they do a hatchet job on President Bush. At least they don't put words in Blix's mouth that he didn't actually say. Next time they might have to dig up Scott Ritter again.
BLIX: Well, they interpreted things that they were seeing, and they? some of the things they saw were not real.
SAWYER: And will they pay a price for that in credibility?
BLIX: I don't know. I'm not accusing them of lack of sincerity. I think they believed, believed in what they saw, and I think [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair clearly believed in what they saw, but some of the material did not hold water.
SAWYER: And what price do you pay?
BLIX: Well, maybe the lesson is that I should be more prudent. I mean if you want to start a war on this basis, then I think the intelligence should be good, not just, 'Sorry about that. It was wrong intelligence. We've shot the wrong embassy in Belgrade.' Remember that case? Well, that was wrong intelligence. They shot at the Chinese Embassy instead of something else. This is not very good.