Why not use third party verfication for WoMD hunt?

[AZCowboy]

In this thread, “Anonymous Scientist :Iraq destroyed own WMD?!”, I posted a number of items that began to look like a hijack. Randy Spears suggested that the topic was worthy of a thread in and of itself, and I concur. So here it is.

For those uninterested in reading the other thread, I will recreate support for the issue here.

From the Washington Post today:

Hunt for Iraqi Arms Erodes Assumptions
CAMP DOHA, Kuwait – With little to show after 30 days, the Bush administration is losing confidence in its prewar belief that it had strong clues pointing to the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction concealed in Iraq, according to planners and participants in the hunt.

After testing some – though by no means all – of their best leads, analysts here and in Washington are increasingly doubtful that they will find what they are looking for in the places described on a five-tiered target list drawn up before fighting began. Their strategy is shifting from the rapid “exploitation” of known suspect sites to a vast survey that will rely on unexpected discoveries and leads.

Now, this article leads one to believe that administration officials, privately, are beginning to question some of the WoMD precepts of the war. However, this article from Reuters today suggests that CentCom, publicly, isn’t giving the same message:

U.S. Still Confident It Will Find WMD in Iraq
Numerous suspect substances have been tested but so far none have been found to be illicit weapons, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks told a news briefing at Central Command’s war headquarters in Qatar.

“We’ve not found any weaponized chemicals, biological agents or any nuclear devices at this point. That work is ongoing,” Brooks said.

“We remain confident that we’ll find evidence of the program that’s been in place in Iraq for some time.”

In the orginal thread, I postulated that this is beginning to sound more like fundamentalist faith instead of reasoned opinion based on credible evidence.

Back to the original thread, I also quoted from this article in today’s Washington Post:

Security Council Set To Debate Blix Role
Blix said today that he is willing to return to Iraq if the council grants its blessing. But he said that he would require “independence” from the U.S. military and the same freedom he possessed during inspections he led from November until shortly before the start of the war in March, including the authority to go anywhere in the country and interview any Iraqi specialists he chooses. “I can’t be on a leash,” he said in an interview.

The United States, meanwhile, has stepped up the recruitment of current and former U.N. inspectors from the United States, Britain and Australia to participate in an American inspection unit that will verify any discoveries of banned weapons by U.S. military forces. U.S. forces to date have not uncovered any proscribed weapons.
…
The effort has generated friction between the United States and its closest ally, Britain. The British government has discouraged civilian British specialists from joining until their role has been more clearly defined, according to diplomatic sources and former inspectors. “We need to have some element of independent verification,” Britain’s junior foreign minister, Mike O’Brien, said today.

I noted that Blix’ desire to operate unfettered seemed reasonable to me, and that the US’ plan to “go it alone” was a recipe for disaster. I had previously responded to this query in the original thread:

Shodan asked in the linked thread:
What evidence would the anti-war contingent accept as proof that Iraq had been developing WMD? The testimony of high-level Iraqi officials? The existence of precursor chemicals, and directions on how to produce WMD? The presence of chemical munitions shells?

With this:

AZCowboy responded in the linked thread:
As to Shodan’s valid question, as I posted in another thread previously, certainly a “smoking gun” cache of bio/chem tipped missles would suffice as proof. But I will even acknowledge the far-fetched possibility that all such weapons have been (recently) destroyed or transferred outside the country. For acceptable proof, I would expect to see multiple independent corroborated interviews with Iraqi scientists, conducted by a neutral third party. To be effective, the US needs to quickly sequester these individuals, and bring in a neutral third party (the UN or even France could meet this criteria) and begin these sorts of interviews. Too much time in US military control will begin to dilute the effectiveness of such an approach.

In my final post in that thread (before this one), I pondered:

AZCowboy wrote in the linked thread:
Could any of the hawks offer reasoning why the US would not want independent third party (UN or otherwise) weapons inspectors in Iraq?

If we are so confident that WoMD evidence remains, why wouldn’t we want third party verification?

As I understand the situation, Iraq is losing billions of dollars each day that oil production is curtailed. In an interview I heard yesterday, the reason that production hasn’t restarted is based mostly on the UN sanctions. That is, the oil wells could be pumping, but right now all the storage facilities and pipelines are full, and until the flow outside the country begins, the pumps can’t be restarted. It would appear to me that the quickest way to restore the wealth of Iraq would be to quickly accommodate UN inspectors in order to remove the UN sanctions. Why isn’t this being done? What’s the downside?

So, these questions in the quote immediately above are the ones I would like to discuss in this thread.

Thoughts?

[MrTuffPaws]

Uh, loss of face for the US?

[AZCowboy]

Now, before I could get this OP written up and posted, Finagle responded to me in the other thread. I have elected to respond here, instead of there, so let me recreate Finagle’s post for everyone.

Finagle quoted a portion of one of the articles I had quoted but did not quote in the OP of this thread. The quote in question was:

AZCowboy posted in this thread:
From today’s Washington Post:

And this quote specifically for elucidator

Cite previously linked
“There’s a common assumption that if you know they have chemical or biological weapons, then your intelligence should be good enough to know where they are,” said Feith.

Now, after that quote, Finagle took me to task with this:

Finagle wrote in the other thread:
Am I wrong in thinking that you do Feith and the author of the article an injustice in taking that quote out of context?

He then quoted the entire paragraph from the original article, which reads:

“There’s a common assumption that if you know they have chemical or biological weapons, then your intelligence should be good enough to know where they are,” said Feith. “But you may hear people talking, referring to specific substances or items, so you know from that that they have those substances or items but may not know where the items are.”

He then concludes his post with:

Finagle wrote in the other thread:
If you read only the quotes you took from the article, one might get the impression of an administration that is losing faith that WMDs exist. But if you read the article, the impression is more that “it’s pretty clear that this stuff is not where it was, so we’re probably going to have to spend a lot of time interviewing people and sifting through documents to figure out what happened to it.”
As for your question about why not allow third-party UN inspectors – I’m not particularly a hawk, but if you’re sifting through evidence, do you really want another group competing with you for this evidence unless it’s clear that they will coordinate well with your teams?

Now, with regards to selective quoting - guilty as charged. But that’s also why I linked the article. Copyright issues prevent my linking the entire article, so I selected quotes that supported my position. However, in this particular case, I didn’t include the quote in question to support my cause, but included it with the offset of “specifically for elucidator”, since luc has often made his “Mount Rushmore” analogy in reference to this very issue. I thought he would find that particular quote of interest.

In a more general sense, the claim that Finagle makes that, “But if you read the article, the impression is more that ‘it’s pretty clear that this stuff is not where it was, so we’re probably going to have to spend a lot of time interviewing people and sifting through documents to figure out what happened to it,’” I summarily reject. I suggest that Finagle and any one else read the introductory paragraph (the first paragraph quoted in the OP of this thread), and draw your own conclusions.

And now, in response to Finagle’s final paragraph addressing the issues in this OP (and responded to by tomndebb in the original thread prior to the creation of this one):

It is clear to everyone that it is in the US’ strategic interest to find WoMD, or at least compelling evidence that they existed in the recent past. In this respect, the US is not a disinterested party.
I’m not sure you want “competing” teams sifting through the evidence, but I’m not sure why, at this point, the US military needs to have teams at all. It seems obvious to me that if evidence of WoMD is found, it is in the US’ interest that the international community finds such evidence as truly credible, and I question whether evidence (particularly scant evidence, which may be the best found at this point) discovered by the US military won’t suffer veracity problems. That risk is signficantly lessened if the discovery is by a third party.

Those risks would seem to outweigh “coordination” risks, wouldn’t they?

[smiling_bandit]

In any event, I doubt there has been serious searches until the past few days, and it may take months or years to comb the whole nation over. Patience.

[AZCowboy]

Patience?

Funny, where I have heard that before…

[John_Mace]

“It would appear to me that the quickest way to restore the wealth of Iraq would be to quickly accommodate UN inspectors in order to remove the UN sanctions. Why isn’t this being done?”

No, the quickest way to remove sanctions would be for the French and Russians to agree to vote to end them. That would take approximately 2 seconds.

[Rooster]

This Just in,

U.S. falsified evidence to justify invasion of Iraq: Blix
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 14:11:45

LONDON - Washington falsified evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify invading the country, the United Nation’s chief weapons inspector has suggested.

Hans Blix made the comments in an interview with BBC Radio.

Parts of the interview were released hours before Blix was to address the UN Security Council. He is hoping to convince member states to allow his team of weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

The inspectors left Iraq shortly before the U.S. military attack started.

Blix said weapons inspectors had “no great difficulty” proving documents that had gotten past U.S. and U.K. intelligence were fake. “Who falsifies this?” asked Blix.

He also accused Washington of undermining the efforts of the weapons inspectors in order to gain support for the war.

U.S. Republican Congressman Peter King flatly dismissed Blix’s allegations and accused him of manipulating evidence.

American troops have found no hard evidence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. There have been reports from Iraqi scientists that ingredients for the weapons do exist and have been buried.

CBC.ca - watch, listen, and discover with Canada's Public Broadcaster

[RandySpears]

John, bandit:

Any thoughts on the major issue of the OP: What reasons are there for the US not to cooperate with the UN inspectors?

[X_Slayer_ALE]

Its been roughly about 30 days since the start of the war. 2 thirds of that time was used to prosecute this war which was very effective and sometimes stimulating on TV. Half of the remaining time was used to secure positions and start to regain civil order. When areas were secure, searches were done of suspected sites. Target areas were provided by intelligence sources that were probably obtained before this war. The trail is cold, all we’ve found so far are stuff that werent even really hidden. Saddam had a whole decade to hide these things and you really expect the US to unearth these things in a matter of a few weeks. Is this guy a moron? He may be a despotic, sociopathic, ruthless, evil bastard with a gut but he is not stupid. It would be easier to find most of the 52 most wanted than to stumble upon WoMd.

I havent even heard of any news reports of the military exploring the bunkers underneath the palaces. Whats up with dat? I want pictures of these “impenetrable” holes.

[rjung]

Because that would require doing the right thing in terms of international relations, instead of the “doing whatever the hell we want to” attitude that’s been the hallmark of this Administration?

I mean, really, the Administration’s refusal to allow UN/third-party inspectors makes no logical sense at all – at a time where the United States’ credibility is already shredded, this stance just make a bad thing worse. If we’re gracious enough to give the U.S. the benefit of a doubt (e.g., that they’re not refusing inspectors to make it easier to plant their own evidence), I can only guess that this position is only taken out of emotional, face-saving egotistical reasons.

[Finagle]

*Originally posted by AZCowboy *
**

In a more general sense, the claim that Finagle makes that, “But if you read the article, the impression is more that ‘it’s pretty clear that this stuff is not where it was, so we’re probably going to have to spend a lot of time interviewing people and sifting through documents to figure out what happened to it,’” I summarily reject. I suggest that Finagle and any one else read the introductory paragraph (the first paragraph quoted in the OP of this thread), and draw your own conclusions.

**

OK, the first paragraph of that article is

With little to show after 30 days, the Bush administration is losing confidence in its prewar belief that it had strong clues pointing to the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction concealed in Iraq, according to planners and participants in the hunt.

Note the word ** whereabouts **. Note the absence of the word “existence”. I hold with my interpretation. They still think the stuff exists. It isn’t where it used to be.

[John_Mace]

Why not cooperate:

1. The Bush administration strongly feels they were duped by the French and Russians leading up to the War. Whether or not you agree with this doesn’t really matter. It’s what Bush et al think. So in this sense, it’s not so much the UN as the French/Russian issue. In effect, that makes by association a UN issue. Bottom line, the US administration does not trust the French or Russians and any UN action would have to include them.

2. The US is pretty much in charge now. Our reputation is somewhat on the line here. It’s not part of the American character to pin our reputation on the ability and/or integrity of another nation. And it’s not just us. Once anyone is a position of power, it’s unusual for that power to be given up voluntarily.

3. Blix must’ve taken speaking lessons from Alan Greenspan. Both can talk for hours and never actually say a thing. Getting back to a situation where all we hear is “well on the one hand blah blah blah, but ont he other hand blah blah blah” isn’t very appealing.

4. We may plan to use certain methods of discovery that another group would not use. And we don’t want them in the way.

5. We’ve got our hands full trying to set up a new gov’t, protect the Iraqis and our own troops, we don’t want to have to babysit some other group that has it’s own agenda.

At this point I think the US gov’t is focussed on getting the job done. We feel confident we can do it ourselves, and if other countries think badly of us because of it, well we can live with that.

[ElvisL1ves]

And this still isn’t the question that needs answering. The war was sold to us on the basis that Iraq represented a serious, imminent threat to the security of the United States, and further that Bush knew details that couldn’t be publicized for safety’s sake. That[ is what has to be demonstrated to shore up the war decision’s morality, even under the doctrine of pre-emption.
Finding a couple of encrusted barrels out in the desert somewhere, near a corroded 159-mile rocket, won’t even come close to that, although it would certainly produce an amount of relief and even gloating by those who are morally out on the limb after having placed their trust in Bush’s word. It just won’t matter who finds that stuff, or when, if it still isn’t clear that it represented the mortal threat we were told it is. If it’s clear then (and I think it is already) that Bush didn’t know either at the time he said he did, the moral question is already answered. Claiming it was really for liberation or some other purposes represents evasion of that point. And over a hundred soldiers and some thousands of Iraqis are dead because of it, too.

[Avalonian]

*Originally posted by John Mace *
1. The Bush administration strongly feels they were duped by the French and Russians leading up to the War. Whether or not you agree with this doesn’t really matter. It’s what Bush et al think. So in this sense, it’s not so much the UN as the French/Russian issue. In effect, that makes by association a UN issue. Bottom line, the US administration does not trust the French or Russians and any UN action would have to include them.

Which pretty much confirms the worst of how we look on the international stage: we’re effectively taking our toys and not sharing with the other children. While that may be what Bush et al think, it doesn’t make it right, and it’s likely that it will worsen our standing with the international community.

*Originally posted by John Mace *
2. The US is pretty much in charge now. Our reputation is somewhat on the line here. It’s not part of the American character to pin our reputation on the ability and/or integrity of another nation. And it’s not just us. Once anyone is a position of power, it’s unusual for that power to be given up voluntarily.

But, if we truly want to show that we can cooperate with other nations, we have to yield in this case. In fact, if we’re going to be honest about it, we’ll eventually have to give power back to the Iraqi government (in whatever form it takes) eventually anyway. Why not get that ball rolling now, and improve our international relations in the process?

Further, I disagree that it’s not “in the American character” to depend on other nations. We have depended on other nations many times in the past (including in the war for our independence), there’s no reason not to do so now.

You’re right that the US’ reputation is at risk here… however, it is not our nation-building reputation that we are risking, it is our reputation of being a nation capable of cooperating on a global scale. If the Bush Administration pushes on with this “go it alone” agenda, then we will lose that reputation fast.

*Originally posted by John Mace *
4. We may plan to use certain methods of discovery that another group would not use. And we don’t want them in the way.

Again, worsening our reputation and confirming the worst fears of the worldwide community, not to mention the Arab world. Not wanting someone “in the way” is one step away from dirty dealings.

*Originally posted by John Mace *
5. We’ve got our hands full trying to set up a new gov’t, protect the Iraqis and our own troops, we don’t want to have to babysit some other group that has it’s own agenda.

So, if our hands are so full, why not share the burden as well as the responsibility? This point doesn’t make sense in any sort of practical way… international cooperation would lighten our load, not make it heavier.

*Originally posted by John Mace *
**At this point I think the US gov’t is focussed on getting the job done. We feel confident we can do it ourselves, and if other countries think badly of us because of it, well we can live with that. **

“Getting the job done” to me requires international cooperation. While the US may be confident of its abilities here, the rest of the world is not, and justifiably so. To put it simply, if we’re not cooperating with the UN and with other nations, we’re not “getting the job done.” We’re doing the job poorly.

And if you think we can “live with” flushing international relations down the toilet for the next decade or so, then you’re living in a much more isolated world than the rest of us. The U.S. depends on international cooperation for business and for political efforts. If we’re going to muck about with other countries’ governments, then we had better do so with the blessing and help of the global community.

[John_Mace]

Av:

I should’ve been clearer that this is what I think the Bush administration is thinking, not necesarily what I think should be done.

The question was “Why not use a 3rd party…”. Now you could postulate what Bush would do if he had a different philosophical mindset, but isn’t that like saying “What would Christians believe in if they didn’t believe in God?”

Yeah, if Bush saw the world as Chirac does, he’d do things differntly. Is that what we’re debating?

[AZCowboy]

Finagle, I see your point, and I find it ironic, but feel I should wait for elucidator to come along with the Mount Rushmore analogy. The crux of which is, how can you know it exists, if you don’t know where it exists? You see, I am more than willing to accept that we strongly suspect that it exists, somewhere. Even that opening paragraph soft-pedaled it with “strong clues”. But that wasn’t the bill of goods we were sold. We were told that we have solid intelligence (but couldn’t disclose the source, and still haven’t), that it does exist. And that we knew where it was. Something that the UN inspectors were unable to corroborate.

But I won’t continue this argument here, as it is more appropriate for the other thread.

And John Mace, thanks for actually addressing the OP. Apparently, such was too much to ask of some others.

On your first point, I don’t really buy it. The administration has gone out of its way since the war to suggest that France and Russia are still our allies, and that we won’t let their refusal to participate in the Iraq invasion negatively impact our long term relationship. Frankly, I can’t find any justification not to trust France and Russia, but besides, trusting the UN inspectors has little to nothing to do with trusting France or Russia.

One last thought on this item, I did not limit the OP to the UN, how about another (independent) third party?

On a side note, I just heard an annoucement on MSNBC that France is supporting the US in providing an immediate end to the UN sanctions on Iraq.

On your second point, it seems to be a double edged sword. I’m not suggesting that the US must share the responsibility (or power) for rebuilding Iraq with the UN. Completely independent of that issue, the US could still host the UN inspectors for WoMD searches. The fact that the US’ reputation is at stake is the strongest argument for an independent third party. This isn’t about sharing power.

On point three, I can agree, but only note that Dubya just extended his support for another term for Alan Greenspan.

Perhaps you could elaborate on point four, as I cannot come up with any “methods” we would use that the UN inspectors would not (unless you’re talking torture or something, which I doubt).

On point five, I can only note that Gen. Blount said today that the US role is quickly changing from “liberation” to “peacekeeping”. In that sense, we are already babysitting millions of Iraqis, could a few hundred UN weapons inspectors be that much more trouble?

Let’s see, the UN already has expertise, infrastructure, and experience in this search, which is more than the US military can claim. Calls for patience are downright laughable. While I understand them, I find it just a bit hypocritical, due to the previous criticisms of the UN inspectors.

[RandySpears]

John:

Do you find the Bush administrations stand on this issue morally and or politically justifiable, in your opinion?

[AZCowboy]

For the record, let’s take a look at what Ari Fleischer had to say at today’s White House briefing on this topic. I’ve excerpted everything related to this issue, and its a pretty dry read. For the gist of it, just read the Q&A to the first and last question (you won’t have missed much).

whitehouse.gov
12:30 P.M. EDT

Q You indicated earlier that the U.S. wishes to have the coalition – that would be mainly us – look for weapons of mass destruction. Do you see no role for the United Nations weapons inspection teams in a postwar Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is looking forward, not backward. And we will reassess the framework designed to disarm the Iraqi regime given the new facts on the ground and the fact that the Iraqi regime that created the environment for the inspectors previously to go in no longer exists. We’ll work with Security Council members, the United Nations, and our friends and allies on the issue of the post-Saddam Iraq and how best to achieve our mutual goals. But make no mistake about it; the United States and the coalition have taken on the responsibility for dismantling Iraq’s WMD.

Q Take it up one step further. In order for the sanctions to end, technically, Iraq has to be certified as free of weapons of mass destruction. Is this something we wish to ignore? Or is this something we want the U.N. to do? Or do we consider the stance of Russia and France, which now are insisting on objections on oil sales to be somewhat, shall we say, cynical?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President called for the removal of sanctions on the Iraqi people because they no longer serve a useful purpose. The sanctions were created to target the Iraqi regime, to deny Saddam Hussein and his henchmen money that he would divert from the oil program to use to build palaces or to buy weapons. Clearly, the sanctions were not very effective because Saddam Hussein continued to benefit from the money that came into his country.

The regime is now history. The sanctions should become history, too, because the Iraqi people need help. And removing the sanctions leads to help for the Iraqi people. And that’s what’s first and foremost on the President’s mind. The sanctions were an action taken against a regime that no longer exists.

Clearly, the United Nations, when they vote on a resolution, they have the power to pass a resolution, given a new reality. That which came before, that no longer exists need no longer bind the United Nations in any future vote that they take. And so we will see what the United Nations does. The President views this as an important issue of humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq, and we hope the United Nations will take the right action.

Q What does the U.S. want the U.N. to do? And will the U.S. sponsor a resolution?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it still is in the early stages. But as the President said last week, we want the United Nations to lift the sanctions. And we will work with members of the United Nations to help make that happen. The Iraqi people deserve nothing less.

…
Q Ari, on the weapons inspections again, you very strongly indicated this morning that the administration was opposed to them going back to Iraq. Other administration officials have said on background the last few days that they’re very much opposed to it. What is the downside of having a hundred or so people in Iraq looking for weapons of mass destruction? Isn’t that more eyes on the problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, what I said this morning is we’re looking forward, not backwards. The regime is gone and we’ll need a new framework. That’s what I said, and I said we’ll look forward to working with the United Nations on it.

Q To answer my question specifically, what is the – what does the administration consider the downside of having them in Iraq?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we have a coalition that is working on the ground to dismantle Iraq’s WMD programs, and we think that’s going to be effective. We think it will get the job done, and the bottom line is the President wants to focus things on the most effective to get the job done.

Q Would there be too many people involved? I can’t – does that mean you feel you have sufficient people in Iraq now doing the job? You don’t need more?

MR. FLEISCHER: We have high confidence in the ability of the people who are there now to do the job.

Q Do you think the weapons inspectors were competent?

MR. FLEISCHER: We have high confidence in the people who are there now to do the job.
…
Q But there is a linkage with weapons inspections and the U.N. has to determine that there are no further weapons of mass destruction there before they lift those sanctions.

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, the United Nations has the ability to pass new resolutions that supersede old resolutions, particularly when the old resolutions were predicated on the existence of a regime that is now gone. Certainly you don’t have to repeat what you did before when circumstances change. So the United Nations has at its disposal the ability to lift sanctions forthright if they so choose. The President hopes they will.

Q But how can you expect the Security Council to prove something like that? There’s a lot of opposition in that Security Council to any idea of de-linkage.

MR. FLEISCHER: It’s very hard to imagine the Security Council would want to inflict any more harm on the Iraqi people than they’ve already been through under the regime of Saddam Hussein. This is not about the Iraqi people; this is about Saddam Hussein – sanctions were about Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people do not deserve to be under sanctions from the United Nations.

Q If you do not allow U.N. inspectors back into Iraq, then what is the administration’s plan for ensuring a chain of custody that would be internationally recognized, including by members of the Security Council?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think it’s fair to say that the procedures that have been put in place that you’ve had described to you in great detail from the briefers in the Gulf about the process that is underway for the coalition forces to search for weapons of mass destruction. The information that we are receiving as a result of the capture of certain individuals, the thousands of pages of documents that we are now receiving as a result of the successful liberation of Iraq, the analysis of these documents and the interviews with others who are associated with the programs are just beginning. And we’ve been very transparent and visible about all of that.

And I think that there will be no question in the eyes of the world, including the reporters who remain in Iraq, at the end of the day when the analysis is complete, that the process has been one of integrity, one of reliability and one of accuracy. Who has been more cautious than anybody in confirming some of the preliminary reports about findings of WMD? It’s been the United States and the United States military.

This is a very cautious, a very accurate approach. And I think that at the end of the day when the weapons are found, there will be no dispute among people about – no dispute among reasonable people about the very issues that you raised. You’ve been watching the process yourself. We have many reporters there.

Q But reporters are not trained inspectors. Reporters often don’t know what they’re looking at. And the people at the United Nations who do this – (laughter.)

MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a minute. (Laughter.)

Q With all due respect to us –

MR. FLEISCHER: That’s why I say I think the process will be a transparent one. I think it’s one that the world will receive the assurances that Iraq has been disarmed. But that should not be confused with the purpose of having sanctions imposed on the Iraqi people previously. Those sanctions were there to prevent Saddam Hussein and his regime from using weapons of mass destruction. I don’t think there’s any question anymore that people fear that the regime will come back to use these weapons of mass destruction; they simply won’t.
…
Q Ari, can I go back to the United Nations sanctions question, and I guess follow up on Bill’s question about the French role, especially the Russian role. These are countries that fought sanctions in the past, and now seem to want to keep them. Do you not see something, at least ironic, and maybe cynical, about this? And I have a follow-up, if I could.

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is going to stand on principle and stand with the Iraqi people to get the sanctions removed. You’ve accurately stated history – other nations had in the past sought the removal of sanctions, even while there were significant questions about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I don’t speak for those countries, but the President looks forward to taking this action at the United Nations, and hoping that the – all nations in the Security Council, or at least a majority, will support the lifting of the sanctions to help the people.

Q The President’s not frustrated or disappointed with their –

MR. FLEISCHER: This hasn’t even moved forward in the United Nations yet. The timing just has not gotten to that point. Clearly, the President was frustrated previously by some of the actions the United Nations took and the United Nations Security Council took. We hope that won’t be the case. But if it were the case, it wouldn’t be the President’s frustrations that matter most, it would be the lives of the Iraqi people.

These sanctions impose hardships on the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people deserve to be able to keep the money that is their money from the export of their goods, including oil and including other material that they have, so they can do what other nations do across this Earth, which is trade freely. And the United Nations should not sit in opposition of the rights of the Iraqi people to rebuild their country through free trade. We support free trade. We believe it’s good around the world, and we believe the Iraqi people, too, should benefit from it.

Q With that in mind, and given that before the war the President said he would not be bound – let’s see how he phrased it – he would not have his hands tied by the Security Council from asserting America’s interests, would he reserve the right to act unilaterally to go outside the sanctions if he felt that was in Iraq’s interest and America’s interest?

MR. FLEISCHER: Let’s begin this on a hopeful note. The United Nations has a chance to do something good for the people of Iraq, and the President hopes they will.
…
Q Yes, Ari, Hans Blix told the BBC, either this morning or yesterday, that he believes that the United States’ claims regarding Iraqi WMDs was based on what he called, shaky evidence. So two questions: A, is the administration still confident that WMD will be found and recovered in Iraq? And the second thing is, if they’re not, is the administration willing to go on record as saying that going into Iraq and waging the war was still the right thing to do?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, there’s no question we remain confident that WMD will be found. One of the things that we all knew, and Hans Blix knew it, is what masters of deception the Iraqis are and how many years they had to perfect their deceptions. I think it’s unfortunate if Hans Blix would in any way criticize the United States at this juncture. The United States is working with the Iraqis to build a new country for them, and I think that would just be unfortunate if his position today is to criticize the United States.

Q But the primary motivation behind going into Iraq, at least as expressed by the administration at the time, was the danger presented by Saddam holding these WMDs. Even if they did not exist, does the administration think that going into Iraq was the right thing to do?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I can’t share the premise. We know they exist and we’re confident they will be found.
…
Q When you say the coalition has taken the responsibility for eliminating any weapons of mass destruction found, are you saying that the inspectors have now become irrelevant to the process, that the process has passed them by?

MR. FLEISCHER: I’m not casting reflections on anybody else. I’m describing what the United States and the coalition are doing.

Q What about the inspectors? Do they have a role?

MR. FLEISCHER: I choose to look at it in terms of what the United States and the coalition are doing to eliminate the WMD. That’s why I say that the President is looking forward, not backward.
…
Q Ari, you were saying before it would be unfortunate if Hans Blix said what he did. But he did. And so the question is, in view of some of the remarks that he has made, including remarks the United States was looking for war, two weeks ago, do we regard Hans Blix as credible and impartial?

MR. FLEISCHER: Credible and?

Q Impartial.

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I’m just not going to cast reflections. Hans Blix had a difficult job to do, and he did his level-best to do it. I simply say in regard to the interview that he gave with BBC today that the blame lies with Saddam Hussein – unfortunate if he would, instead, criticize the United States of America.

Q Does that reduce his credibility, though, as a potential – I mean, here is somebody who is criticizing the United States and at the same time saying, I want to be the judge of the truth here. Does that impeach his credibility?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President is looking forward, not backward.
…
END 1:14 P.M. EDT

So, the party line seems to be “the President is looking forward, not backward.” Anyone want to parse the meaning of that phrase for me? Sounds just a little close to “the ends justify the means” to me. Otherwise, it seems the rest of the responses boil down to “trust us”.

[RandySpears]

Ari Fleitscher
And I think that at the end of the day when the weapons are found, there will be no dispute among people about – no dispute among reasonable people about the very issues that you raised.

(My Bolding)

[John_Mace]

AZC:

Responding to your responses about my itemized list. And, by the way, I think #1 is far and away the main issue. The other ones are secondary, maybe even just terciary.

1. Yeah, we’ll cooperate w/ France and Russia on many issues in the future, but not on Iraq, at least not right now.

As for other third parties, it’s hard to think of any that don’t have some controll by France/Russia and have anywhere near the kind of technology we have. NATO is out, the EU is out. Who else is there (who also have technology to get the job done)?

2. What can I say other than “We don’t need no stinking ba-tches”. Bush sincerely believes we can find all the evidence we need w/o help.

3. Greenspan, unlike Blix did get the job done. He’s kept inflation low for a long time and has the confidence of the Biz community.

4. Not torture, but detentions.

5. Maybe not much trouble, but see #2 above.

Let me ask you-- how can you ues “Cowboy” in your moniker and not understand the go-it-alone philosophy?

Randy:

Morally, yes. I was not in favor of invasion, but not on moral grounds, more on practical grounds. Now that we’re there, it’s really our thing and I’m fully confident the US troops are as competent if not more so than the UN inspectors. The French are our allies on paper only. They’re not our enemies, but they’re pretty much beside the point.

Politically, I’m not so sure. If I were in his place, I’d probably let UN inspector participate, but as adjuncts to US troops. I’d nix Blix, and perhaps let UN inspectors accompany US troops, utilizing any expertise they might have. And if I were I looking for another Swede to run things, you’d be on my short list!