Hey, wait a second. When Bush spoke to the UN, he said “The Security Council resolutions will be enforced.” That implies that there are Security Council resolutions in effect, right? So what’s all this about “We feel the inspectors should not go in until there is a resolution that gives them the authority and instructions of the Security Council”? I mean, if we want new resolutions, that’s good; I’m pretty confident that Saddam would be willing to hide stuff inside his palaces, so I can understand wanting access. But that’s no reason to thwart (the State Department’s word) inspections under the current rules, is it? Let’s be clear on this: that’s a direct threat from the United States State Department to obstruct the work of the authorized and appointed UN weapons inspection teams.
Maybe Bush didn’t want the existing Security Council resolutions enforced after all. Perhaps he should have said so. Alas, he’s now allowed himself to be manuvered into a sticky position — it’s not Iraq standing in the way of the UN any longer, it’s the US who appears to be “a threat to the authority of the United Nations…” Again, Bush’s words.
Yeah, that was just a really, really smart bit of strategy.