Why not use third party verfication for WoMD hunt?

Great Debates
41

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. "

There are reporters around, yes, but can we trust them? The same people who led the cheers into the war are themselves going to point out that they were wrong? There are few human emotions stronger than the desire not to admit having been fooled. It’s much easier to say “The stuff just hasn’t been found yet”.

AZCowboy, I take it I’m one of those with whom you expressed annoyance for not answering the OP - my apologies for making you feel that way; but I’ll stick with the reply that the question itself is missing the mark. You’re asking about how to restore the US’ reputation for truthfulness about WMD’s existence, and it’s not inappropriate to say it can’t be done.

No, it’s not politically or psychologically possible for the Bush leaguers to invite or even allow anyone else’s participation in The Great Search for Vindication. They sold the war on the basis of the UN’s incompetence in any such serious matters (“Inspections are a joke”, remember?), intrinsically painting the US military as the only organization able to deal with the problem. They cannot make themselves go back on that, and most certainly cannot allow themselves the possibility of embarrassment caused by someone else, especially Blix’s people, actually finding anything first.

42

ElvisL1ves, no, my comments weren’t really directed at you, I was more interested in how those who supported the war effort could justify locking out third party inspectors.

John Mace is the only poster to attempt to address the issue with any substance, and I sincerely appreciate that. The lack of participation by the hawks on the OP is probably most telling.

I understand your point - that it simply isn’t compatible with Pax Americana. I can accept that explanation. However, it has been my perception that few supporters of the Iraq invasion also heartily endorse the unilateral imperialism trends of this administration. And I just wondered how they reconciled this sort of decision with the compassionate conservatism of Dubya.

While John Mace has focused on a lack of trust with France and Russia (which I don’t understand how diplomatic disagreements represent a failure of trust), I simply note that even Britain isn’t standing with the US on this one.

43

Britain wasnt stand with the US regarding invasion without a new UNSC resolution, either.

In fact I seriously doubt the US would have even bothered trying to get a new resolution had Blair not pressured Bush.

Britain is a much smaller country than the US, and is thus more dependent on its neighbors. It is a lot less likely to adopt the US’s unilateral approach.

44

It makes it impossible to plant the weapons in the first place. That’s why.

45

Quite telling. So where are you guys? Slayer? Sam Stone? Beagle? Can it be this hard to find a good december when you actually need him?

46

What exactly is it telling you? And why, exactly, do you equate “hawks” with “believing that the US will do an thorough and trustworthy job of detecting whether or not WMDs exist?”. It is possible to not be in favor of the war and still, at the same time, believe that our government does not consist solely of lying weasels.

47

Well, finagle, I think you are attributing to me statements made by AZ in an earlier post, that I quoted. Better read thouroughly to avoid misunderstandings my friend.

But since I agree with AZ I’ll have a shot at answering your questions.

The abscence of otherwise iraq-debate-hungry people, as those mentioned above and others, tells me that they:

(1) Haven’t seen the thread.
(2) Don’t have an opinion.
(3) Agree with consensus so far.
(4) Don’t agree but have a hard time coming up with any arguments.

(1) and (2) is quite possible and may be the case for some but certainly not for all of our favourite hawks given how gladly they usually give voice to their opinions on these bords. (all in good democratic spirit!)

(3) and (4) implies that there are few (to none) sound arguments supporting the US official policy on this issue at the moment.

I wouldn’t. Equate those two things, that is. Neither would AZ i’m sure.

But there seemed to be a shortage of people willing to speak up on behalf of the gov on this issue. And the assumption (faulty or not) was that “hawks” have generally been very willing to speak up for Bush et al on issues concerning the Iraqi war previously, and would be likely to do so this time as well.

You don’t consider yourself to be a hawk, but you agree with the administration on this issue. Very well.

So may I ask: what are your thoughts on the previous discussion in this thread? Where did we get it wrong?

48

Despite that, you seem like a pretty good sort. :smiley:

I agree, John - that goes beyond what they can do with a straight face.

Yeah, I was aware of that. I can’t say I trust the French very far. And the Russians…well, their interests and ours still aren’t at all the same. The fall of Russian Communism has meant that we aren’t locked in mortal combat with them, which is a major plus, but they still see the world in a very different way than we do.

49

While one may claim that France shouldn’t be trusted because they supported lifting the sanctions against Iraq for many years prior, to be fair, you would also have to reconcile that position with the comments, quoted earlier, from Ari Fleischer:

So where is the trust issue again?

50

An old aphorism says:

A similar rule applies here. Friends of the US will believe US findings of WMDs. Enemies won’t believe it, even if some third party confirms it.

51

“I’d really rather not go into depth regarding the derivation of my handle here”

It was a joke, AZ. I had no intent to try to get you to reveal anything. I just couldn’t help pointing out the irony I felt in arguing the “go it alone” philosophy w/ someone nicknamed “Cowboy”.

I’m not sure what your point is about Ari’s quote. Can you clarify?

52

The world is not as black-and-white as you like to portray it.

53

There you are at last december, welcome!

So are you saying then that the world can be neatly partitioned into “friends of the US”, “enemies of the US”, and nothing in between? Personally I would have a much easier time accepting a find that was confirmed by f. e. the UN inspectors than one claimed by the US alone.

Consider the NW forgeries discussed above, to see why the UN inspectors have more credibility than the US for many people.

54

I’m not December, so I hope I don’t disapoint you, Randy, by responding.

It’s not easy for many of us Americans to seperate the UN from France at this point. Can you understand that, even if you might not agree?

Can you suggest a nuetral third party that would actually have the technical know-how to do the job? Japan? I’m at somewhat of a loss.

55

I knew who made the original statement. I also knew that you quoted it and apparently agreed with the sentiments. You agreed that it was “telling” that the “hawks” hadn’t shown up. The implication of this statement was that only those who were notoriously rightwing and pro-war would unquestioningly accept the results of a US investigation and that any rational person (my interpretation) would require a third-party verification by an uninterested party.

My thoughts on the subject, since you asked.

a. People who automatically think the U.S. is going to do a coverup if they don’t find N/B/C weapons have seen too many movies ala The Pelican Brief and Conspiracy Theory. Healthy skepticism is OK, but some of the discussions I’ve seen in the WMD threads have bordered on paranoia. Not too mention that the scrutiny being given the search would make planting or exaggerating evidence very risky – not finding WMDs would be very bad, but getting caught fudging evidence would be a fiasco of epic proportions.

b. I’ve been impressed by the candor and professionalism of the U.S. military in performing their search so far. In every article reporting a possible find, you will see a quote (usually at the end of the article) from a US spokesman saying “Don’t get excited, we’re still checking it out, this needs further evaluation.” They’ve been pretty forthcoming about the false positives.
c. I haven’t heard any rationale behind the US’s rejection of the previous UN inspection team. So it’s hard to evaluate. Could just be that their previous failure to locate anything has reduced the administration’s confidence in their competence. Could just be a preference to have all the potential sites remain undisturbed.

d. Third party verification? Cool. Should the UN do it? Meh. The UN’s current record in nailing violators seems pretty poor lately.

56

As of today, Fearless Misleader is determined that lowering the expectations is the best course. Its going to “take time” to find these dreadful WMD’s. We are, however, reassured that they are “no longer” a threat. I, for one, am much relieved to know that intercontinental drone aircraft tipped with nuclear anthrax will not be making thier way to the Mall of America.

It would appear that our absitively posolutely solid intelligence might be a bit shy of that standard.

And our offer stands. Quarter of a million dollars, cash, just walk in, start talking and pick up the boodle. And nobody does it. Out of all the people who must know where these stacks and stacks of nerve gas Scuds are sitting, not one of them has come forth.

Iraqis don’t like money?

57

“I’m not December, so I hope I don’t disapoint you, Randy, by responding.”

You won’t! I always enjoy exchanging views with you, John.

“It’s not easy for many of us Americans to seperate the UN from France at this point. Can you understand that, even if you might not agree?”

Can I understand this? Well I guess that from a purely psychological perspective i can. But really, I hope I will never have to attribute such a, well frankly stupid, notion to the majority of the american population.

No offense. Let’s sort it out.

The UN consists of it’s member states. That’s all the nations of the world (maybe save one or two). It’s main HQ is located in the proud city New York, NY, the US of A.

The UN Security Counsel, on the other hand, consists of 15 nations at any given time. Five of those are permanent. (And when they vote against a resolution it always counts as a veto. The US has frequently used this veto power to block resolutions unacceptable to them. Often in the face of all other members. For example on the issue of Israel. Again: on numerous occassions.)

The UN inspectors are a number of professionals with suitable merits for the job. They are not politically appointed, save maybe the top dog (that would be Blix and his egyption collegue).

Now it is quite obvious that neither the UN nor the UNSC will ever be a french lapdog, right?

Furthermore, we are discussing UN inspections here. These would be under the command of Hans Blix. And he is just a friendly Swede. So such feelings would perhaps be relevant if the american public had a deep distrust of the Swedes.

You could say: if they were anti-Swede.

But then, god save us all!

58

(Above Re: John Mace)

finagle: it’s way past bedtime over here in Scandinavia so i’ll adress your post tomorrow.

59

Iraqis don’t like torture, followed by messy death? It’s plausible that there are people who have information, but who are still nervous about coming forward. Saddam still hasn’t been caught, and they may still be afraid of repercussions should they open their mouths.
Jeff

60

I seem to recall Blix being hand-picked by France, though. If I were a cynic, I might say that he was picked precisely his views matched those of France.

Oh, wait, I *am[/] a cynic.
Jeff