You’d think that any country truly interested in disarming Iraq would wholeheartedly support inspections. As the man says, more weapons in Iraq have been destroyed by inspections than by bombs. Makes sense.

And any country wanting to get troops on the ground would try to sabotage inspections, or use them as an excuse to insert the military. That also seems to make sense.

Asked about the criticism of Mr Blix by figures in Washington, Mark Gwozdecky, for the UN team, remarked: "Those who make these attacks don't seem to understand the damage they are doing to the international attempts to stop proliferation, not just in Iraq, but elsewhere. It is inspectors who find hidden weapons, not bombs. Inspectors have destroyed more weapons here than the bombs have."

If one looks at GWBs actions, he wants troops in there, not disarmament.

Seems clear, simple, easy, logical.

And why would Bush and Cheney want troops in Iraq? What does Iraq have that would make that expensive scenario attractive? How, oh how to make sense of it all??!!

Arf (too bad this experience offers other "bad" nations a reasonable excuse for refusing inspections)