"Yo, T... Do you have a copy of the report??? You apparently don't or you wouldn't continue to say that Blix did noty make the satement that the Iraqis were cooperating beyond "process"... Meaning, in the field..."

OK then Bobert, we'll take you over it once again:

Taken directly from the report presented to the UN Security Council on 27th January, 2003, by Dr. Hans Blix:

"I turn now, Mr. President, to the key requirement of cooperation and Iraq's response to it. Cooperation might be said to relate to both substance and process. It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide cooperation on process, notably access."

(English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Blix states that the co-operation required has two componebts, "substance and process". He goes on to say that "Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process", please note Bobert he says that had "decided in principle", which is a qualification Bobert, he does not state that they have decided to co-operate)

"A similar decision is indispensable to provide cooperation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion through the peaceful process of inspection and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."

(2nd English Comprehension lesson for Bobert: Here Blix is stating that on the subject of "substance" the other vital component of the co-operation required from Iraq - they have not even decided in principle to provide co-operation in substance and that a decision to do so is indispensable to the disarmament task)

"The substantive cooperation required relates above all to the obligation of Iraq to declare all programs of weapons of mass destruction and either to present items and activities for elimination or else to provide evidence supporting the conclusions that nothing proscribed remains.

Paragraph 9 of Resolution 1441 states that this cooperation shall be "active." It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of catch as catch can."

Note those last two sentences Bobert - they weren't there to play "hide-and-seek" - they weren't there to have to look for and find anything, the requirements of 1441 were that Iraq had to come clean on everything and deliver up proof of what they had, or what they had done with it.

On the "Bush lied" thing - You cling to your conclusion jumped to because of a sloppy piece of journalism, then state as "proof" that it is correct by stating that the journalists involved have not retracted what they reported. A question Bobert - Have they been asked to? One thing is for certain if GWB had been told that Iran had halted its nuclear programme back in August and then stated in October it was still running, the press and MSM would be all over it like a rash - They are not - Care to explain that? The day after the NIE was published the President was asked point blank about it. He explained exactly what had happened and identified the person who briefed him on what and when. The press and MSM appear to have accepted that explanation - even the ones who wrote the article you have quoted and misinterpreted.