We’ll be commenting on the

We’ll be commenting on the Blix and ElBaradei reports when we have had time to digest them, but in the meantime, here is the BBC’s take:
“The report of the chief UN weapons inspector Dr Hans Blix was not so much the ‘mixed bag’ he had promised as the sandbagging of Iraq…What he said enabled the United States to increase the intensity of its diplomatic assault on Iraq, which might soon become a physical assault. This was the key test – whether the United States would moderate its language. It did not. It has plenty of ammunition from Iraq’s ‘missing munitions.'”
The BBC is clearly unhappy to see Baghdad “sandbagged,” and it sets out its own summary of the “Evidence Against Iraq” and the “Evidence For Iraq.” The BBC’s final point of Evidence For Iraq is that “Iraq says that ‘missing material’ was all lost or destroyed,” and it concludes with the age-old conundrum: “Is the glass half-full or half-empty?” The BBC’s view, apparently, is that if half of Iraq’s toxic material is accounted for but the other half isn’t, the U.S. and Great Britain should view the glass as “half-full” and stop making trouble.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line