[teal]

Scott Ritter (a previous inspector) was very active in saying that the Iraqi's did NOT have WMDs (or at least that they could not possibly be a threat to the U.S.). i.e. the point of view was out there that Iraq was not a threat well before the war. If Bush was not aware of these arguments how come? Isn't it his job to be aware of what is going on and the arguments pro and con? Being ignorant about the arguments is almost as bad as lying about them, to my mind far worse. If Bush was aware of the arguments and *if* they are later shown to be correct (as early indications are that they will) how come he didn't believe them? To my mind being biased against arguments that are later shown to be completely and utterly correct is also a troubling trait.

Ritter's speech in which he outlines his case is also quite interesting in another point. He says that just before the inspectors left the first time that the U.S. tried to assasinate Hussein. They did so by using the inspections as an intelligence gathering mission to try and pin down where he was and then nail him with cruise missles. So the inspections were a vital part of the U.S. assasination attempt. Now ask yourself this. The people you are dealing with have tried to kill you in the past and they have used inspections as a tool with which to make it easier for them to do so. Now do you cooperate fully with these people when they ask for inspections again?

Before people jump on me, this says *nothing* about whether such an assasination attempt was a good thing or not. It does however go a long way to explaining why a Hussein who did not have WMDs would still not cooperate fully with the inspections.