Three stories — all of which I found at InstaPundit — have me thinking.
According to Kenneth Timmerman, WMDs have been found by the U.S. military, but the U.N. jumps through hoops to declare otherwise. (Via Glenn Reynolds.) There’s a lot of evidence, and I am surprised it isn’t getting more coverage. Surely the U.N. doesn’t have that kind of power?
Then there’s this (Via Jeff Jarvis):

When I heard about the decision of the coalition to get UN involved the in the process of authority handover, I grew really restless, and what made me more worried is that ?all parts? seem to agree on this; the coalition, the UN the GC and the whole world. Now wait a minute! Is that the same useless, half corrupted organization that supported Saddam, and still support his likes in the name of preserving the international wall? Is that the same organization that left Iraq and the Iraqi people after the 1st terrorist attack? I hope they are speaking of something other than that. Some people would say that this is what the Iraqi people want, but this (if it?s ever true) is not the question….
[T]here?s no possible way, with all this violence going, that the Iraqis can voice their real demands, or that significantly valid polls can be performed….
It?s my right and my duty as an Iraqi citizen and a human being to speak out and say that what Iraq needs is a firm alliance with the USA and the rest of the coalition, because these are the governments that have real interest in establishing a true democracy in Iraq and these are the people that I trust most. As for the UN, it can play a role in organizing humanitarian aids and can also play a minor role in the political future of Iraq.
(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Considering the damning evidence showing the U.N. to be hopelessly corrupted by (and in the pay of) Saddam Hussein, is it too much to ask whether or not there might be a conflict of interest vis-a-vis the arms inspectors?
If WMDs have been found and that has been covered up by corrupt U.N. inspectors, the biggest question on my mind is: why isn’t the White House telling the world?
After reading this analysis from Daniel Drezner (via Glenn Reynolds), I am tempted to conclude that there’s no hurry.
UPDATE: Here’s Senator Kerry in an interview with Chris Matthews on the WMD issue:

…. Look, I want to make it clear: Who knows if a month from now, you find some weapons. You may. But you certainly didn’t find them where they said they were, and you certainly didn’t find them in the quantities that they said they were. And they weren’t found, and I have talked to some soldiers who have come back who trained against the potential of artillery delivery, because artillery was the way they had previously delivered and it was the only way they knew they could deliver. Now we found nothing that is evidence of that kind of delivery, so the fact is that as you peel it away I think it comes down to this larger ideological and neocon concept of fundamental change in the region and who knows whether there are other motives with respect to Saddam Hussein, but they did it because they thought they could, and because they misjudged exactly what the reaction would be and what they could get away with.

I’m having a bit of trouble; I think I’ll run the translation machine on that one.
Well, here’s what I got:

Ciotola of qu’ils the groups of l’issue to look like absents distant, when of the mass of the destruction and — we can still do it, Chris that we find. It concerns itself, I I would wish to indicate
obvious: Who knows, if a month of inside then d’ora, found some groups. They can. But certain ritrovamento of didn’t, where they had said that they were and you certain age didn’t that in the amounts of qu’ils it meant the ritrovamento of qu’ils. And weren’t that had found and j’ai, that one with some soldiers, that had emitted shutdowns the other way around, s’est would use them to satisfy to the improvements with the delivery d artillery, was this because l artillery he was the direction, had it, before the one of and c’?tait provided, that qu’elles of l’unico knew the direction that qu’elles he could provide. Hour we found n’avons of all, of that one the test of that one is that he is pleasant with the delivery, later is made to this, because l’?pluchez, absent distant, of that the task, GONE, greater he stops low to the this ideological and the concept of neocon basic change of the scale and sapete, s’il d’autres of the reasons of such way how much Saddam Hussein has here, but the given form qu’elles of the thought of parce l’ont qu’elles could and m?jug? of parce qu’elles exactly that would be the reaction and with this qu’elles could go.

(Originating link via Glenn Reynolds, who also notes that Frank J. has offered to help Senator Kerry.)