I really don't know anything about him, except for a recent article he wrote in the Jerusalem Post, where he states:
"The US liberated or protected Europeans for more than 60 years from Nazism, communism and other mortal threats. There are few traces of that in the current debate in EU countries; instead, anti-American sentiments have become the philosophy of the day. A lot of people in certain European countries, once or twice liberated by the US, even try to insult America today in a bizarre way. President George W. Bush is sometimes seen as almost a bigger threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. "
"Daniel Pipes had it right in the Jerusalem Post ("Why the Left is nonchalant about September 11," March 19) when concluding about Europe that "none of the millions of anti-war demonstrators had a bad word to say about Saddam Hussein, nor an iota of sympathy for those oppressed, tortured, and murdered by his regime. Instead they vent fury against the American president and British prime minister."
Need I say more?
He seems like a royal ass...
Anybody have any dirt I can throw at him?
He writes of Hans Blix:
And specifically info on the incident that Per Ahlmark says proves Blix's stupidity...that while Blix headed the IAEA, he stated that Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and then a short time later it was proven that Iraq was within 1 year of gaining nuclear device...I know that recent reports have been proven fake by the IAEA, but what of the 1991 incident?
To quote Per Ahlmark on this:
"Despite his grave failings as IAEA chief before 1991, Blix once again came to lead U.N. disarmament inspectors, this time in tandem with another Swede, Ambassador Rolf Ekeus.
Blix, na?ve and relatively ignorant about technical details -- his field is international law -- easily is mislead. Even after the gulf war he failed to realize that Iraqi officials, who again were assuring the United Nations that they were hiding nothing, were but consummate liars. Indeed, Blix believed that Iraq had no program at all for nuclear arms. David Kay, perhaps the most effective arms inspector, insisted that he did not trust them. But Blix reproached Kay for his attitude. You must believe in official information, Blix implied.
The turning point came when Kay initiated inspections of suspect buildings without notifying the Iraqis about his intentions in advance. This new, aggressive inspection strategy had dramatic consequences: Kay discovered material which confirmed that Iraq was only 12 to 18 months away from producing a nuclear device.
This historic discovery ended up in a confrontation at a parking lot in Baghdad. U.N. cars were surrounded by 200 Iraqi soldiers and a mob, ordered out to the scene by Iraqi officials. For four days and nights the siege continued, as Kay and his colleagues used satellite telephones to fax crucial documents to the West."
and
"The turning point came when Kay initiated inspections of suspect buildings without notifying the Iraqis about his intentions in advance. This new, aggressive inspection strategy had dramatic consequences: Kay discovered material which confirmed that Iraq was only 12 to 18 months away from producing a nuclear device.
This historic discovery ended up in a confrontation at a parking lot in Baghdad. U.N. cars were surrounded by 200 Iraqi soldiers and a mob, ordered out to the scene by Iraqi officials. For four days and nights the siege continued, as Kay and his colleagues used satellite telephones to fax crucial documents to the West.
Blix had opposed the raid. Fortunately, Ambassador Ekeus backed it and supported the inspectors during the siege. I have met a number of experts on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and they often compare the two Swedes: "Ekeus is brilliant," they say, "Blix is terrible."