Nate Perkins wrote:
"Fletis Humplebacker" ! wrote in news:1117j2927qgc938
@corp.supernews.com:





Not everybody. UNMOVIC was well on its way to concluding that he
did NOT have them, just like IAEA did IRT a nuclear weapons
program.
The US first obstructed UNMOVIC by supplying false information
like
the US did to IAEA, and then invaded befor UNMOVIC was able to
complete the taks the US had demanded it perform.


That's a skewed perspective. A timeline was given after
10 years of Saddam's nonsense, including his removal
of power. Dragging it out until UN inspectors were satisfied
wouldn't make much sense since a decade had already
gone by and an Army can't be held at bay indefinitely and
there was a weather factor to deal with. I would agree that
the UN member nations could have solved the problem
but they had their own interests at heart.

Unfortunately much of what you call "nonsense" consists of us
accusing
Saddam of having things he didn't have, and then us demanding that
the
Iraqis prove a negative.


Indeed. Prior to the invasion I charaterized that as Bush's Plan
Nine argument, based on the closing question from _Plan Nine from
Outer Space_ "Can you prove it didn't happen?"

Bush deliberately made a demand that could not be met. Not even
the Vatican could have proven it did not have WMDs.

--

FF