Some examples of the broad span of opinions:

New York Times: ''They wanted to come to the conclusion that there were weapons,'' he (Blix) said. ''Like the former days of the witch hunt, they are convinced that they exist, and if you see a black cat, well, that's evidence of the witch.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...50C0A9629C8B63

Fox News: Blix - "We had credibility and we didn't lend it to their (US officials) contentions, and I think that we were right and I think so far nothing has proved us wrong," But U.S. officials, deeply skeptical of the U.N. teams, have said they wouldn't be welcome to return right now.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84473,00.html

The Guardian: Hans Blix, the distinguished international lawyer, forgot that he was charged with a mandate of investigation, not indictment. By choosing to embrace the American policy line that Saddam Hussein was guilty simply because Iraq was unable to prove a negative, Hans Blix took on the mantle of co-conspirator in a war which never should have been fought.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ntamnesiaofamo

Townhall (conservative site): Here we are at the crux of a debate over America's aggressive interventionism of the last few years. Is Islamic radicalism in potential alliance with WMD-bearing terrorist states a threat to the very existence (hence: ``existential'') of America and of civilization itself? … The new idea, expressed by Blix representing the decadent European left, and recently amplified by Michael Moore representing the paranoid American left, is that this existential threat is vastly overblown.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/C...ss_complacency

Do yu have opinions for or against that you can support?
Pleeeeezz - no name calling. It is juvenile and contributes nothing worthwhile.