"You're projecting current knowledge backwards again."

No, I'm not- name something the UN inspections said over the last 2 years that was false?

"The only reason we know anything at all about the status of WMD in Iraq is because we took the place over, and went over it for months with hundreds of personnel unobstructed by Saddam, the military, the police, or anything else."

Oh, this is absurd. Look- what we are finding is entirely consistent with what the UNI said we'd find. The only reason that partisans like you didn't have any true knowledge about Iraq is that you rejected the information coming out of the UN Inspections that you all pushed for.

Are you going to really argue that the only way to determine the validity of you justifications for war is to invade, take over, and go from there?

"Prior to the war, the U.N.'s proclamations about WMD were, and ought to have been, taken in light of their previous abysmal record. "

Essentially, the inspections only look to be a failure when you assert that Iraq still had WMD at the time of the invasion. But as you clearly point out, Iraq does not have said WMD.

So you can't both have the existence of WMD and non existence of WMD at the same time as suits your rhetorical agenda. Or does this point of foundational logic escape the steel trap of your mind?

It appears that their "abysmal" record is, for at least the last decade in Iraq, one of our manufacture. It appearts as if the 92-98 inspections were successful in eliminating Iraqs ability to construct WMD, its actual WMD stockpiles and so comnpletely frustrate Iraq in this issue that in the 5 years of no inspections, Iraq did not return to their construction.

"There was no objective way to unquestionably confirm what they were saying, and intelligence was telling us several things at once, not all of them mutually consistent.
"

So what you are asserting is that inspections were doomed to failure because, from the very start, we culd never trust the inspectors? So why was it the policy of Bush Sr to mandare, contruct and enforce the inspection regime? And if this was a failed policy from the start, of our manufacture why wage war on the Iraqi people because of our screw up?

This is odd to me: if everyting the Inspectors said is not only false, but proof positive of the opposite case, why don't we go to war against the inpsectors and Bush?

"So, if the guide says the cave is empty, and has no bears, one has to remember that the last few times he said the cave was empty, you got your ass chewed off by a bear. So, do you go into the cave with or without a gun?
"

I'm not going to indulge argument by analogy. Its stupid.

"Allow me to refresh your memory a bit."

The story you link to is not available to me because I am not registered, nor will I.

I assume you are pointing to the non scud al-samouds? My memory is perfectly entact, and the UNI was very engaged in destroying those missiles.

"To make a long story short, Iraq was attempting to buy missile technology off of North Korea, something that you apparently missed in the interim report. This has been proven. The Nodong missile involved has a range of 1,300-kilometers, which is quite a bit more than the 150 km Iraq was permitted, or the 190 km range of the illegal missiles Iraq cheerfully sacrificed to keep Blix happy."

Then please bring forth said missiles in Iraqi hands! Look, that Iraq had to be continually thwarted in its attempts is not something that surprises anyone, nor is ot cause for war, nor does it support the claim "The UN INSPECTIONS failed". Blix said himself, in his report to the UN, that Iraq was likely continuing in their efforts WRT missile technology. Or did you 'skim' that part out? (works both ways, Tom)

And you and I also have different standards of proof. (for you all it takes is for the Bush admin/Kay to say 'Trust Me', I am a bit more gun shy, so to speak).

"It's interesting that you have decided that any weapons violation of U.N. sanctions is okay as long as it doesn't involve WMD."

Funny that, because our purpose for going to war was that Iraq had WMD. Funny that, because the original thread began with a discussion about the veracity of UN claims concerning WMD!

Jesus Tom! Get a grip on yourself! Turn the 'partisan rhetoric generator' off for a second. Look at the damn subject headers in this thread.

Frankly, you dragging in thre Al Samouds and NoDongs is just a attempt (as per usual) to redefine the debate away from WND. I am entertaining it because you basically still don't have a point.

Davin L.