There were no inspectors in Iraq until the Bush administration threatened to use force.
France and Russia were pushing for sanctions to be lifted despite this (want to explain that motivation?).

Sanctions had worked, but were on the verge of collapsing. They most certainly not working at the start of the Bush build-up. The collapse of their effectiveness was due to exactly the type of wishy washy Clinton foreign policy you and Raoul advocate ie don't do anything without French/Russian approval and ignore their obviously selfishly motivated actions.

I've followed this for 14 years Don, and gotten increasingly irritated with France and Russia placing profit over containing Iraq, and Clinton's ineffective response to both Saddam and Al-quieda. Raoul can hand wave it away with innapropriate comparisons of foreign trade all he wants, but the pattern was clear. The Democrats are loosing all credibilty on foreign policy by ignoring that 14 year history and acting as if all problems stem from the Bush administration period. I'm quite happy to have a President that places our interests over those of France and Russia especially when they also serve the greater world's interest.

Saddam did have WMD at one time because he used them, and he had an active nuclear program at one time. Absent inspectors and cooperation there was no way to verify he did not still have them. It would have been stupid to assume he no longer had them. It appears this is the type of foreign policy you and Rasoul advocate. Assume no harm will come unless it happens even if it happened as little as 10 years ago under the same ruler. Sorry, no way in hell I'm voting for someone who wants to go back to the same policy ideals that resulted in 911. Saddam may not have been responsible for 911, but weak Clinton policy which allowed Al-queida to grow and Saddam to maintain his brutal regime was.

There is also no reason to treat a country as an ally when they consistantly act as if they are not.

Regards,
Mark