Ironies continue

[libertango]

Remember how we were being told... Oh, as recently as two weeks ago, that UN inspectors were neither willing nor able to hunt down Iraq's reputed weapons of mass destruction?

Well, as I was driving home from class tonight, I heard the radio version of this report from the BBC:

It is crucial for the Bush administration to find the weapons it argued were the key justification for going to war in Iraq.

There were administration officials who were contemptuous of the United Nations' efforts to track them down.

But the head of the UN team responsible for chemical and biological weapons and missiles, Hans Blix, says the United States has approached several of his inspectors and asked them to end their contracts and join its own operation.

Well-informed sources have told me the same recruitment effort is being made with nuclear experts employed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

So, see, as soon as we hire them, they're lovely fellows who can do a splendid job.

I suppose this rules out my cynical belief that perhaps Los Amigos Arbusto had information about where the alleged WMD are, and were just withholding it to get a war on.

Comments

[yonmei.livejournal.com]

No, no: the current pro-war line is that the reason the UN inspectors couldn't do their job was because Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate. It's not that there was ever anything wrong with any UN inspection team per se, but that as we could all see for ourselves (not) there was not enough cooperation with the UN from Saddam Hussein. (this line is evidently that the US is the UN's saviour in spite of itself).

Am currently, wearily, contemplating an argument with a pro-war debater on smartwardebate...