You have a record that the thing rolled off the assembly line, but you've got no proof of its destruction other than a smoking hole in the ground. I see your point and think it is valid but also think that they could have done a better job by making everything wide open. The perception to the world was that he was dodging and being deceptive. He should have said, "wherever you want to go at any time is fine"
I think the Iraqis did what they could to comply That is where the difference is. You trust them more than I did. I thought / think that the lied about a great many things and found guilt in their behavior. Ultimately though, I can't show any evidence they were lying so that leads me to believe he was unstable and not thinking clearly (besides the other clues like torture and genocide I mean:) which was a good reason he shouldn't be ruling.
Just read this which is sort of interesting for what it is worth: http://apnews.myway.com/...40917/D855CLS02.html
Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.
According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.
Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.
As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.
After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for going to war and overthrowing the regime.
I think the Iraqis did what they could to comply That is where the difference is. You trust them more than I did. I thought / think that the lied about a great many things and found guilt in their behavior. Ultimately though, I can't show any evidence they were lying so that leads me to believe he was unstable and not thinking clearly (besides the other clues like torture and genocide I mean:) which was a good reason he shouldn't be ruling.
Just read this which is sort of interesting for what it is worth: http://apnews.myway.com/...40917/D855CLS02.html
Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.
According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons.
Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons.
As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned.
After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction - its chief argument for going to war and overthrowing the regime.