First, T, lets deal with the "Bush lied" portion of your post... Given the touchy nature of the Bush administration where every thing reported in the news that makes them look bad is swiftly countered it is my belief that if this was not true then the Bush team would have been all over the Post for printing it... But the Bush team let it ride... And it wasn't like a story printed on A-17... It was a front page story...

As for Blix's statements, I don't deny anything you've said... But I do find fault with not only your assessment that only one sentence in the report was psoitive and I also your assessment that there wasn't enough progrss "on the ground" to justify Bush's rush to invade...

Alot of this argument has been been hashed out in that the portion of Iraq's non-cooperation was in their inability to prove that the didn't have what we know know they didn't have... We had this argumnet back then, T, and as it turns out I was on the correct side of that one, unless of course, you know something that no one else knows about stockpiles of WMD's that Iraq possessed...

But back to Blix... Seein' as you are of the opinion that I am basing my position on just one sentence, perhaps you might go back thru the report because you are missing alot of it... I have posted at least 3 different paragrahs from it that in themselves would make any thinking person ponder on the wisdom or morality on invading Iraq at the time Busgh pulled the plug on the inspectors...

Bottom line, there was enough positives, given the 10 years since the inspectors were last there, for the process to have continued and war be just what Congress intended, a last resort...

B~