# Why not use third party verfication for WoMD hunt? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 22, 2003, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357 "2003-04-22T17:51:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/21 "2003-04-22T21:16:04Z")
The Coalition of the Reasonable, huh? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/22 "2003-04-22T21:20:44Z")
(Re: my previous post, not John) ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/23 "2003-04-22T21:28:38Z")
“the President is looking forward, not backward.” I see this as meaning: “The UN had it’s chance, and failed. We have picked up where they left off.” I don’t see it as saying the ends justifies the means. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/24 "2003-04-22T21:29:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > 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. And the quickest, least violent way to accomplish regime change in Iraq was for Saddam to voluntarily go into exile. The reason we went to war was that we didn’t get to make Saddam’s choices for him. And the reason we might want to consider diplomacy is that we don’t get to make Russia’s and France’s choices for them, and we aren’t willing to make war on them. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/25 "2003-04-22T21:38:42Z")
RTF: I think we’ll get the sanctions lifted. I’d like to see the French try to veto a proposal before the UNSC. Both France and Russia have been calling for this for years. If you do a google search on “Franch lift Iraq sanctions” it’s amazing how many articles pop up from years gone by. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/26 "2003-04-22T21:39:16Z")
> [@](#): > > _ **John Mace** wrote:_ > Let me ask you-- how can you ues “Cowboy” in your moniker and not understand the go-it-alone philosophy? 🙂 I’d really rather not go into depth regarding the derivation of my handle here, but I will point out that the reference to “Cowboy” doesn’t come from the traditional form. While I am originally from Oklahoma, I’ve never broken a bronco. The reference actually comes from the football team, the Dallas Cowboys (of the Landry era, btw). In that sense, I believe in teamwork. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/27 "2003-04-22T21:43:22Z")
> [@](#): > > _John Mace_ > 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. Are you confident that the americans will be honest about what they find, as well as competent? > [@](#): > > I’d nix Blix, and perhaps let UN inspectors accompany US troops, utilizing any expertise they might have. Why nix Blix? > [@](#): > > And if I were I looking for another Swede to run things, you’d be on my short list! Hehe, why thank you. It **is** the Swede’s premier career choice you know. Blix predecessor, Rolf Ekeus, was also one of us competent and effective (yes, indeed we usually are!) swedes. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/28 "2003-04-22T22:23:03Z")
“Are you confident that the americans will be honest about what they find, as well as competent?” Good question. There will be a lot of temptation to fudge things. I think there are enough reporters running around to keep a lid on that. Whatever one may think about the intelligence of Bush, I’d expect someone like Powell to resign if he sniffed any duplicity. So, if we suddenly find WMDs and Powell mysteriously resigns, I’ll start a thread that says “Is the US fudging the Evidence?”. RTF: BTW, France is already saying it supports “suspending” the sanctions. Maybe that’s how they’ll save face. I’d be magnanimous enough to let them continue with that charade. Bush might push a harder line, though. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/29 "2003-04-22T23:09:20Z")
**AZ** , I find your posts cogent, concise, and to the point. You need no assistance from me whatsoever. Sic 'em. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/30 "2003-04-22T23:18:16Z")
Well, just one. With $200K offered for anyone who can step forward and rat out Evil Old Bugger, and lead us to the warehouse at the cornero of Saddam Street and Saddam Blvd. with its stacks and stacks of Scuds armed with nuclear anthrax nerve gas… Yet no one steps up to pick up the goodies. Why? Nobody in Iraq likes money? Or nobody has anything to sell? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/31 "2003-04-22T23:26:44Z")
Hi, **luci** , well one anonymous scientist oviously wants some dough: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178698](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=178698) ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 22, 2003, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/32 "2003-04-22T23:29:16Z")
obviously ---
**Author:** ![Optihut](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/edb3f5/32.png) [@Optihut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Optihut)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/33 "2003-04-23T03:47:05Z")
It’s quite obvious that the rest of the world won’t believe a thing the USA allegedly finds, if they don’t allow impartial weapons inspectors to verify and / or oversee things. The Bush administration knows this. Granted, my opinion of Bush is low, but even _he_ has to know that. That makes me wonder what’s there to gain from not inviting international weapons inspectors? Perhaps Bush has decided that winning over the world is a lost cause anyway and that it is better to have the option to tweak and streamline the facts here and there in order to silence any doubting voices at home? ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/34 "2003-04-23T05:58:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*“Are you confident that the americans will be honest about what they find, as well as competent?” > > Good question. There will be a lot of temptation to fudge things. I think there are enough reporters running around to keep a lid on that. Whatever one may think about the intelligence of Bush, I’d expect someone like Powell to resign if he sniffed any duplicity. So, if we suddenly find WMDs and Powell mysteriously resigns, I’ll start a thread that says “Is the US fudging the Evidence?”. > \*\* Sorry, but that assumption is lacking any basis in reality. Neither the reporters nor Powell have the knowledge to discover fudging of scientific evidence. As such, it would be very easy to fudge ‘evidence’. Especially when it can be declared secret and be held from public scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Phoenix\_Dragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/65b543/32.png) [@Phoenix\_Dragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Phoenix_Dragon)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/35 "2003-04-23T06:30:06Z")
Let’s rewind a bit… UN inspectors want to go in to confirm restricted weapons and deal with them appropriatly. Iraq says “no.” US says that the UN should allow millitary action because Iraq said “no.” UN says “no.” US attacks Iraq anyway. UN inspectors want to go in to confirm restricted weapons and deal with them appropriatly. US says “no.” :smack: It’s not quite equivelant (At least on-the-ground searches are being done), but I still find it horribly ironic… ---
**Author:** ![regnad\_kcin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@regnad\_kcin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regnad_kcin)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/36 "2003-04-23T12:37:47Z")
This present administration has ALREADY shown its incompetence in dealing with evidence about this very issue when it presented its Nigerian sales receipt. Because they were so sure in their belief that Iraq possessed WMD, they were unable or unwilling to inspect the document’s veracity, even though the UN experts said that it was determined to be a forgery with “no great difficulty”. Only one of two possible conclusions can be made: 1) US intelligence is, in comparison to international intelligence, grossly incompetent, or 2) the US created the forgery itself. I doubt its #2, but dont you think that, given that #1 is true, the US is capable of fudging or screwing up something again? Unless massive stockpiles are found (and, with a $200K bounty, massive stockpiles would surely have been located at this point), this question will be asked, albeit outside the US only. Ari Fleischer never answered the question asking what the downside of UN inspectors would be. Fleischer, like every president’s press mouthpiece, expertly dodges questions he doesnt want to answer. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/37 "2003-04-23T12:56:39Z")
**regnad:** there is also the conclusion 1. A strategic decision was made to either not look into the authenticity of the documents, or to use them although they were likely forgeries. In other words: to look the other way while others did the dirty work. A prominent feature of US foreign policy. (3) is the most likely scenario I would say, although a more active role in the forgery as in (2) is certainly not impossible. (1) i would restate as: “US intelligence screwed up.” Possibly because of a willingness to believe. Maybe they got the stuff from Mossad f. e., with reassurances of authenticity. All three is possible. Either one is certainly no good merit for the task at hand. Poor credibility. ---
**Author:** ![regnad\_kcin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@regnad\_kcin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/regnad_kcin)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/38 "2003-04-23T14:24:48Z")
I disagree. Had US intelligence been less incompetent, they would have noticed it was a forgery. Thus conclusion #2. The UN determined that it was a forgery with “no great difficulty”. That the US was presenting forgeries (and the UK plagarism of an outdated graduate thesis) did enormous damage to American credibility in this issue. I cant believe, had the US done its homework, that it would have concluded “go ahead and submit this to the UN. They’ll never notice it’s fake”. You must conclude that the US didnt do its homework, thus it is incompetent in the face of predrawn conclusions when the pressure is on to produce. The Bush administration is STILL clinging to these conclusions, and the pressure is still on. This time, however, the UN is not invited to proof the conclusions. ---
**Author:** ![OliverH](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/278dde/32.png) [@OliverH](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OliverH)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/39 "2003-04-23T15:07:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by regnad kcin \* > \*\*I disagree. Had US intelligence been less incompetent, they would have noticed it was a forgery. Thus conclusion #2. > > The UN determined that it was a forgery with “no great difficulty”. That the US was presenting forgeries (and the UK plagarism of an outdated graduate thesis) did enormous damage to American credibility in this issue. > > I cant believe, had the US done its homework, that it would have concluded “go ahead and submit this to the UN. They’ll never notice it’s fake”. You must conclude that the US didnt do its homework, thus it is incompetent in the face of predrawn conclusions when the pressure is on to produce. > > The Bush administration is STILL clinging to these conclusions, and the pressure is still on. > > This time, however, the UN is not invited to proof the conclusions. \*\* Actually, the CIA warned the White House that the document was unreliable, and potentially forged. They decided to go ahead using it anyway. Which is adding insult to injury. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2003, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357/40 "2003-04-23T15:22:47Z")
So (3) then. Still the same conclusion: The US has poor merits for this job. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-not-use-third-party-verfication-for-womd-hunt/170357.md?page=3)