I suggested that we ask Hans Blix if Saddam Hussein cooperated with him.
Nichols says it doesn't matter what Blix says, because Blix lied.
So he does not consider the UN inspectors to have a voice in the debate on cooperation with the UN inspectors. I think he has no basis for his accusation against Blix which is pure calumny.
I also note that he insists he is right but wont accept a bet in which I offer him 100 to 1 odds.
I conclude that he is a coward as well as a libeler.
Also he is clearly incapable of understanding what I wrote and unwilling to rethink.
I conclude that he does not have and has never had anything useful to contribute to the debate on the invasion of Iraq.
I finally note that i am typing in Italy and must be able to prove my claims to avoid civil and criminal liability.
update: In case anyone is interested, this is the first thing I wrote on the then prospective invasion of Iraq http://rjwaldmann.blogspot.it/2003/03/well-i-managed-to-resist-posting-about.html
anyone who reads it will note that I assumed Saddam Hussein had WMD. That means I assumed he was not complying with UN security council resolution 1441. I also argued that WMD in Iraq were an excellent reason NOT to invade Iraq. I stand by that argument. Invading Iraq was a mistake. I think that if there had been WMD it would have been a worse mistake.
Well, you convinced me.
ReplyDeleteThe bad thing about the Internet (in which I am including Twitter) is there is so much wrong on it and so few that will back down from a bad position.