Jeff, my man, in these unhallowed halls I’ve seen many a clutching for straw, flailing about helplessly for the merest scrap of plausible defense. Really.
But this is the prize, the first class, no-more-calls-we-have-a-winner!!
The streets are crawling with US…I mean, coalition…troops as far as the eye can see and everybody who knows about the WMD’s are so scared of a dead guy they won’t pick up the phone to claim $250,000?
Get real.
Randy:
Well, if there’s one country we 'mericans are more suspicious of than France it’s Sweden. Just a joke, although you wouldn’t have too tough a time finding folks here who would agree with that.
As for the French/UN connection, there are probably only 2 countries that play the UN well. That would be France and the US. Both countries exert a force over that institution far beyond what could be considered “natural”. The old USSR used to play the game pretty well, but Russia is a piker compared to the Evil Empire.
I saw an interivew on McNeil/Leher the other day with a ex-UN weapons inspector. I think he was an American (could’ve been Canadian-- he never said “about”, so I couldn’t tell) so take this with a grain of salt. But, he claimed Blix and his crew would be pretty useless as their whole modus operandi was based on contacts they had with the Saddam regime. Said regime being rather scarce these days. Something to think about.
Be that as it may, I still don’t consider the UN to be an “impartial 3rd party” on this whole matter. It was the US against the UN/France leading up to this war and there’s an awful lot of bad blood there.
Can no one suggest a realistic 3rd party to step in? I threw out Japan in a post earlier. Any thoughts on that? I guess realistically, to get anyone other than the UN involved would mean a pretty long delay as that party got it’s shit together to be able to take on and execute the task. And by then, the US would have all the evidence it needs, right?
Realisitically, I think the Bush administration is not all that worried about world opinion at this point: We’re there, we’re doing the job, and if you don’t believe the results that the US publishes, well fine, don’t believe it. Next question?
On second thought I will adress the first part of your post today.
Hell’s bells! In case you knew who made the statement, I do think that it would have been better for you to direct your questions directly to the originator of the statement then. Then you and I needn’t be stuck in this debate over what AZ really meant.
But since I agreed with AZs sentiments, and I do believe I understand what he meant by them, I chose then to answer your questions. And now I really don’t see what you are rambling on about.
No that was not the implication of this statement. That was your mis-reading of the statement. But I believe it was based on the assumption that:
This was in my last post you know, did you not read it?
I am saying that there isn’t much upside to bringing in some third party to verify.
Maybe my point needs more explanation. It’s already overwhelmingly likely that there are WMDs. We know that Iraq had large stores of them in 1998. We know that they have never confirmed the destruction of them. Nor would it have made sense for Saddam to destroy them without showing the UN that he had done so.
When the chemical and biological weapons are found, there will be a number of people involved. There will be a team of scientists, not just one. They may or may not all be Americans. There will be numerous reporters from many countries. There will be Iraqi witnesses who will testify to the WMDs that were made and what was done with them. Most people will believe all this evidence.
No doubt some will think that all these parties are mistaken or cheating or part of a massive conspiracy or tricked by the Americans. Some will simply ignore any evidence and forever believe that the WMDs are unproved. As far as I’m concerned, those who choose to disbelieve or ignore all the evidence that will soon be available can suit themselves. I don’t think we should go to some special effort to win them over. I’m not sure we can win them over and I don’t think we need to do so.
Is it? “Overwhelmingly likely”? Based on what intelligence, pray tell? Not, one must hope, from the same intelligence source that provided “overwhelming” evidence that Saddam was buying uranium from Nigeria. The same “overwhelming” evidence that Saddam has intercontintental drone aircraft for spraying nerve gas? The “overwhelming” evidence that aluminum tubes can be used for one purpose only? That sort of “overwhelming” evidence?
No, of course not, it must be that “overwhelming” evidence that is simply to sensitive to be released, even now. Must be mighty sensitive stuff, since it can’t be released even when the war is over, even when people are clamoring for proof. Nope, can’t do it, national security, very hush hush.
Odd, don’t you think, that the President just today talks about how its going to take some time to find these things, things he was totally sure about just a few weeks ago.
Perhaps you can explain the subtleties of intelligent for us unworthy ones. What kind of intelligence is it that allows you to be entirely certain that something exists, but have no clue where it is?
Phone rings at the CIA:
CIA: Central Intelligence, how can we thwart you?
Achmed Ratout: Saddam has 1,000 nerve anthrax nuclear Scuds!
CIA: Cool, where are they?
AR: I don’t know.
CIA: No sweat, we believe you.
That sort of overwhelming evidence?
These people have shown you time and again that they have about as much credibility as Dick Nixon’s evil twin, and you believe every word they say, hook, line, and sinker. It is the Faith that Surpasseth All Understanding.
John, the point of Ari’s quote is that even the US acknowledges that the sanctions against Iraq were “not very effective”. Provided that France may have come to the same conclusion, it seems entirely reasonable for them to support the lifting of sanctions. Why support them if they are “not very effective”? Note that there are plenty of opponents of Castro here in the US who also support withdrawing the sanctions against Cuba, pointing out that the pain of the sanctions are borne by the populace, not the regime. And in Iraq, our problem was with the regime, not the people (right?).
In direct answer to the OP, I am afraid you have confirmed my suspicions with this:
This sentiment is further supported by december with this:
So when I asked in the OP:
The answer is: Because the Bush administration really doesn’t care.
Now mind you, when december says, “Most people will believe all this evidence,” I’m skeptical. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone could refute the idea that more people will believe it if it is verified by a third party. I do accept his premise that some won’t believe it under any circumstance, as I also accept that many will suggest that it just doesn’t matter if WoMD are ever found.
From my perspective, third party verification of Iraq’s WoMD would go along way toward easing the “anti-Americanism” that december rails about. I believe it would be even more effective in restoring the international ties the US has recently strained. So I am a bit incredulous when december states, “there isn’t much upside to bringing in some third party to verify.” I simply can’t reconcile the two positions.
Now, let me briefly step into the little spat between Finagle and Randy Spears.
There is some truth to this characterization. That folks best described as “notoriously rightwing” would unquestioningly accept the results of a US investigation seems practically a truism (but only due to the rightwing administration, they certainly wouldn’t have if Clinton were the instigator). It seems practically a truism that folks best described as “notoriously leftwing” would question results of even a third party. But I believe that the vast majority of Americans, and the world for that matter, fall somewhere between those two groups. Of that majority, some will go either way. I postulate that more would be swayed to support the administration with third party verification than without.
This question appeared to me to be an excellent test case to find out whether the administration is pursuing a foriegn policy best described by the PNAC neocons, or whether the policy was better described by the administration’s rhetoric leading to the invasion.
When the answer to my OP questions is “because the administration doesn’t care”, then I see only one likely answer to the foreign policy question.
I have strong doubts whether the majority of the American people would have supported the invasion of Iraq if the case had been made based on the PNAC philosophy. Unfortunately, they were deceived, and apparently, purposefully.
It lends credence to the position taken in this Washington Monthly article, “Practice To Deceive, Chaos in the Middle East is not the Bush hawks’ nightmare scenario–it’s their plan”.
For anyone taking time to read the article, note that while it is dated “April 2003”, it was originally posted in March (and therefore written sometime before the end of March). This is an important observation in terms of the articles reference regarding the US foreign policy towards Syria, for example.
Alright, now just a little more housecleaning:
I’ll agree that the official position has been quite appropriate about dampening expectations, however, the “anonymous pentagon/DoD/Centcom source” leaks have been quite the contrary. Plausible deniability and all (a tactic perfected by the neocons during the Iran-Contra scandal at the end of Reagan’s administration).
And how is the US military’s record any better? In fact, the US’ inability to find anything to date, and asking for patience, tends to absolve the UN inspection teams of the harsh criticisms the US directed at them.
Ditto. I only note that the UN has a better track record than the US on this count.
It certainly didn’t appear to keep Tariq Aziz away.
Abe has done a good job of refuting this silly assertion here. You have to page down to the bottom of Abe’s post, as he had to help cover ground that has been covered numerous times before.
TTFN.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ElJeffe *
I seem to recall Blix being hand-picked by France, though./QUOTE] Sir, I believe you are mistaken. Could you please back that up with a cite? (Or admit your mistake?)
I know this is late in the game, but after spending a while reading all of this, there are two points that stick in my mind.
First, I think skepticism of government is good, and that questioning the government’s actions and motives is a good thing. I therefore fault no one for doing so.
I cannot however understand why so many are willing to doubt the US but trust Hans Blix or someone appointed by the UN. In fact, I find it mindboggling. Hans Blix has no credibility. He has acted in a manner that is anti US, his statements have implied, if not directly stated, that he thinks the US is both incompetent and dishonest. His leaving out key points of Iraqi dishonesty from his reports that were made public, only to bury them in footnotes later makes him, to my mind, far from impartial. Having a third person look at something only adds credibility if they agree. But what if the third person is not trustworthy and declares evidence to be false which is actually true? Why in the world would we want to open the door to such a morass?
Do you trust Hans Blix? I don’t. He has made his anti-US bias clear, as is his right, but we control Iraq now, and we have the right to have the job done with integrity and professionalism – two qualities that I believe are absent with the honorable Mr. Blix. By the way, it is well known that the Iraqis knew about the “surprise inspections” that Blix was foolish enough to believe (if he actually did believe) were made without the Iraqis knowing beforehand. In the 90s, a number of weapons inspectors complained that the Iraqis were being tipped off by the French. I believe the number two guy directly under Blix is a French general. Coincidence? Maybe, but then again, maybe not. Someone was tipping the regime off, though, and we know that for a fact. The only reason to tip someone off is that you did not want to find what you are looking for. That is something to consider, and a powerful motivation not to allow them to be involved. That is not the reason UNMOVIC will never be involved, however.
Second, and what I think is the direct answer to the question at hand, is that many consider the efforts of France and Russia to have the UNMOVIC involved to be an attempt to get the UN back into the Iraqi matter and to establish a foothold from which to demand a greater UN role in the reconstruction of Iraq. This is what I believe Ari means when he says we are looking forward, not backward.
I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that once UNMOVIC went back in, the next thing you would hear would be a call for greater UN involvement in the awarding of contracts, etc. Why would the French say that sanctions should be suspended, but only if UNMOVIC goes back in? These are the same French that voted agains the creation of UNMOVIC in the first place. What does UNMOVIC’s presence in Iraq have to do with whether sanctions should be lifted? I see no logical connection, and the French appeal to former Resolutions is both silly and hollow. Resolutions can be undone, after all. The threat under which the sanctions were imposed have been removed. Obviously, there is an ulterior motive in mind, as the French always seem to have with regard to Iraq.
While the OP references the “UN or otherwise,” we are really talking about the UN. There is no one else I have heard that has asked or been asked to be involved. Having some other group come in would first require absolute assurance of their integrity and impartiality. For those seeking third party confirmation, who do you suggest?
'luci:
Whoa, you have evidence that Saddam is dead? The US government would be very interested in that information; I suggest you present it to them post-haste.
[aside]
If I had more time on my hands, I would love to search for the inevitable elucidator post where he uses the fact the we don’t know where Saddam is to somehow bash the Bush administration.
[/aside]
AZC:
No, he did a pretty lousy job, considering it took me all of five minutes to provide a link demonstrating that Blix was, indeed, a man of France’s choosing. You then said, “Ah ha, but everyone agreed that he was a good choice!”, to which I replied, “So what? That doesn’t change the fact that he was selected by France.” Wildly entertaining, really.
Jeff
Well, I know he said so, because elucidator is a Bush-basher. It’s inevitable. I have the evidence, but its secret and I can’t show you. I’m offering a $25.00 reward for the cite, but if nobody comes forward, its because you’re all afraid of him.
Sure. Right. You bet.
Come on now elucidator. Well all know that you had your loyal moderator minions delete those posts after the end of the war. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 
Don’t you have to have 10 for a minion?
Nah, they’re pretty big caliber. Three will do in a pinch.
Randy:
Somewhat of a hijack here, but I’ve got a quesiton for you. I’m assuming that you’re a pretty staunch anti-Iraq war guy, right? So, let’s say the US lets Blix et al back into Iraq and they found some WMDs. Let’s say some significant amount of anthrax and a clear indication that they had a nuclear weapons program going. All verified by a Swedish Nuclear Physicist, of course. 
Would you then say: “Yeah, I think the US was right in invading Iraq.”
I’m guessing you wouldn’t, but correct me if I’m wrong. In which case I’d have to ask, what difference would it make, then, if the UN inspectors went in there or not? I seriously doubt that anyone who was anti-war would change their mind.
It isn’t that simple, John, as much as the Bushistas would like to make it so. For some time now, they’ve tried to bring it down to WMD’s exist or don’t. But that isn’t entirely it.
I have little doubt that most of the nations of the world thought it was a pretty good bet that he did. But they considered Saddam fairly well contained, seeing as he couldn’t use his WMDs without kissing his ass goodbye. It was GeeDubya came storming in, making threats, and saying, from the git-go, that if he didn’t get his way, he was going anyway. Not exactly the way to win freinds and influence people.
My take on it is that the UN passed 1441 mostly to try to get a handle on the situation and hoped that GeeDubya would come to his senses. Remember, we sent our ambassador, Mr. Negroponte, to promise that there would be no automatic war is WMD’s were found, he promised to bring the matter back before the UN for consideration.
Then Saddam starts to cooperate. Grudgingly, but doing it. If you’ll recall, the neo-con hawks were sure he wouldn’t let the inspectors in. And then he did.
Then the UN inspectors called our bluff. You got evidence, give it to us, and we’ll check it out. We hemmed and hawed and finally turned some over. And it was whale dreck. Not good. Then it turns out our golden intelligence about Saddam buying uranium was total bullshit. Even worse.
To top it all off, GeeDubya swears on a stack of Marvel comics that he’s going to put the thing before a vote, no matter what, gonna see everybodies cards, yessiree Bob.
And then he cuts and runs, and tries to blame it all on the French.
Now, keep in mind, when all this “WMD” shit started, he was talking nukes. Nukes were then part of “WMD”. Then the whole nuke theory fell apart, then it was damn near everything but nukes.
And now we can’t even find that. Not a single charge that Colin Powell made before the UN can be substantiated, unless you count that balsa wood and duct tape “drone aircraft”. The “secret lab” turned out to be in territory not controlled by Saddam, and worse, it was a bunch of derelict buildings. And, of course, the uranium forgery. We end up looking like a bunch of rabid cowboys, shoot first and damn the consequences. Meanwhile, of course, we tiptoe around North Korea.
So…do you figure all of this comes out even if we find a barrell of WWI mustard gas in a basement somewhere?
I don’t. The Canadians offered a face saving compromise, keep the pressure on and maybe avoid war and we slapped it away with contempt. Hell, not even Mexico went along with us and we fucking own Mexico! What does it take to make you understand that we have made total assholes out of ourselves?
And for what? What have we gained? The people who were neutral don’t like us, and the people who didn’t like us hate us. And all of them fear us.
Brilliant. Fucking brilliant. And now, if it turns out that Saddam was telling the truth and we were full of shit, we make a martyr out of one of the evilest buggers ever to screw a camel.
God help us, the little twit thinks he’s Churchill.
Elucidator:
A few things here.
I was not pro-war, taking pretty much a libertarian type of stand that issue. And, frankly, I wouldn’t change my stance if the hypothetical I posted were to play out.
Saddam only started “cooperating” with the UN inspectors after the US started building up our militiary presence in that area, ie, getting war-ready. No US buildup, no inspections. I don’t think you could dispute that.
In my hypothetical scenario, I listed a nuclear program specifically so that we weren’t just talking about “WWI nerve gas” as a WMD. I wanted there to be something of real substance that might sway someone to change sides. So it’s unclear to me why your post, in reply to my hypothetical, not only ignored that, but actually focused only on “WWI nerve gas type of stuff”.
And, based on your comments, it would appear that you feel Bush has made so much an ass of himself that I can’t see why having a 3rd party to some inspections at this point would make any difference at all. And that, by the way, is the topic of this thread.
Well, George W. Bush certainly thinks so, at least enough that he’s ready to declare the war is over.
Besides, even if Saddam wasn’t dead, what’s he going to do if Achmed Rattout wants to tell the U.S. where those hitherto-unfound caches of WMDs are? It’s not like Saddam’s going to be able to pluck Achmed out of U.S. protective custody and toss him into one of those nonexistent human-sacrificial-plastic-shredders the war hawks keep touting.
No, John, it can’t make a lot of difference, save only that a scrap of dignity might be salvaged, a scrap that we are very much in need of. If GeeDubya had only “made an ass” of himself, none of this would matter. Would that it were so.
Elucidator:
OK. That’s what I thought. BTW, I feel your pain.
Of course you do. If only he did.