My reply was to quote the same person making quite different claims:

"On December 19, Hans Blix reported before the United Nations and stated in regards to Iraq's December 7 report (unedited version): "During the period 1991-1998, Iraq submitted many declarations called full, final and complete. Regrettably, much in these declarations proved inaccurate or incomplete or was unsupported
or contradicted by evidence. In such cases, no confidence can arise that proscribed programmes or items have been eliminated." By March, Blix declared that the December 7 report had not brought any new documentary evidence to light."

and

" Blix's March 7 report stated "Iraq, with a highly developed administrative system, should be able to provide more documentary evidence about its proscribed weapons programmes. Only a few new such
documents have come to light so far and been handed over since we began inspections.""

So do you refute what Blix's March 7th report states?

The deadline was December. The terms of the resolution were not met- Do you claim otherwise?



"Tell me why what Iran was doing 5 years ago is *more important* than
a sane approach to what Iran is doing today"

I agree- A sane approach, ie, demanding that Iran comply with its obligations to the NPT, is more important. Yet I do not hear that as a demand: ONLY that the US should not make any effort to enforce that

compliance.

Same as before the invasion of Iraq- You demand that the US NOT take action, and fail to demand that Iran comply with the demands of the international community. The signal that is being sent to Iran, (and other possible violators of the NPT) is that it is ok, and you encourage a siutuation that is FAR more likely to lead to thermonuclear war than anything that Bush has proposed or attempted.



Sorry, in this case I consider that you are wrong.