Here is a link to a transcript with an Australian weapons’ inspector. He was the chief technical weapons’ inspector for Blix and later for the US.
He has some very interesting things to say about how the CIA wanted its reports written. It’s first rate farce. If you like Heller’s Catch 22 then you’ll love the story of the mobile biological trailers.
I’m doubled up with laughter. Thanks, that was great!
[quote=“Fox”]Here is a link to a transcript with an Australian weapons’ inspector. He was the chief technical weapons’ inspector for Blix and later for the US.
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2005/s1302767.htm[/quote]
Interesting article. I have no trouble believing that the content of this article could have happened as reported, but I am curious about a couple of things.
I know nothing about the news organization that published this report and so can’t make any judgments about credibility there. As far as Rod Barton is concerned, I do have a comment which makes me question this article. In short, as I read the article, I repeatedly got the impression that he didn’t seem educated or eloquent enough to be in the inspection positions and in the high-level conversations that he claimed to be a part of. He might be 100% on the level, but something just seemed odd.
Does anyone have any other source to confirm that this guy is who he says he is?
Can someone (Aussies?) tell me about the news organization that reported this. Is it a reputable news organization in Australia?
Seeker4
I stand to be corrected, but from an NZ perspective ABC seems pretty reputable. They’re one of the major networks in Australia, and NZ’s news programs source pieces here and there from them.
ABC is the largest most credible news organisation in Australia. It is a government news organisation, and if you simply did a Google search you would be able to check the veracity of who Rod Barton is. I’m sorry he doesn’t sound intelligent or eloquent enough for you. Perhaps you’re just a snob. I’m not saying you are, but a little self reflection is always a good thing.
Fox, if you don’t agree with someone’s observation, there’s a right way to do that on Forumosa – and yours wasn’t it. Get your crap together and contribute or keep your mouth closed.
Thanks to others for your answers about ABC – that’s what I wanted to know.
Seeker4
You don’t think your comment was snobby. Well sorry, it was. The skirts of the rules are no place to hide behind.
Anyway, I’m glad you read the article.
Well, I have a comment which makes me question a lot of the Bush administration’s decisionmaking on WMDs. In short, as I’ve read many articles, I repeatedly got the impression that Bush didn’t seem educated or eloquent enough to be making decisions about the validity of the inspections or in the high-level conversations that he claims to be in. He might be 100% on the level, but something just seemed odd.
Does anyone have any other source to confirm Bush is who he says he is? Now, I don’t want to be a “snob,” but normally aren’t guys like Bush working as TV weathermen?
But seriously though, folks…
As for you, MFGR, the term is meteorologist – please. Fine, some of these TV meteorologists may not have gone to your fancy schools or have high-fallutin’ initials after their names, but they are still serious professionals who take pride in their craft. Don’t be a snob!
Good one. What can I say, except, it is a total mystery to me as well.
I’ll be hosting a snob party in the near future. Ascots, monocles, and sour expressions required. Grey Poupon will be provided.
Seeker4
Grey Poupon?! Sniff! That is for arrivistes! nouveaux riches! and other gate crashing undesirables. If it is not whole grain Moux mustard from Dijon, I simply cannot permit myself to attend. Sniff.