Ah, yes. The US is suddenly trying to undermine Blix's authority. All part of the rhetoric about not accepting the verdict of the inspectors... unless, of course, they say exactly what the US wants them to.

Of course, there was a different tune coming from the US administration in Jan of 2000, when they pushed for his appointment. A snippet from an old UN newswire Jan 27, 2000:

Some Question Blix's Resolve
Some observers criticized Blix's appointment and questioned his potential to strictly enforce UN weapons regulations on Iraq. Paul Leventhal, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, said Blix's tenure at the IAEA was marked by timidity. "I believe his track record at the IAEA suggests that he tends to bend to political will rather than come up with independent findings," Leventhal said. "That gives me real concerns as to how strong a chief inspector can be."
Under Blix's leadership, the IAEA came under fire for failing to detect Iraq's clandestine nuclear weapons program despite carrying out routine inspections of nuclear facilities. "If the approach of the IAEA is now going to guide the new commission, I think the world will have to be highly skeptical about the kind of conclusions this commission reaches," Leventhal said (Barbara Crossette, New York Times, 27 Jan).
...
But US officials praised Blix, saying he would do an excellent job leading the new commission. John Ritch, the US ambassador to the IAEA, said Blix should not be blamed for the agency's failure to detect Iraqi weapons. "To criticize Hans Blix for [Iraq's] secret nuclear program is scapegoating," Ritch said. "Blix was burned. But what he did after the Gulf War is what counts. The IAEA dismantled Iraq's nuclear program" (Crossette, New York Times).
Holbrooke also commended Blix. "We think he is an excellent choice," the US diplomat said. "We are very moved by his willingness to undertake such a difficult task at this stage in his long and illustrious career" (Reuters/CNN Interactive). ..."

Hmmm. Convenient change of tune. Which spin shall we believe today?

Personally, I'm skeptical about comparing routine inspections of a US-funded military ally (Iraq in the 80s) with a microscopic level inspection of the US's enemy of the month.