>>And I have yet to see either of you answer T.' questions, with anything remotely like supporting evidence ( quotes, refernces to UN reports, facts that are proven and not opinion, etc.<<

Are you talking about this apparently spurious January 1999 UN report prepared by Hans Blix and Scott Ritter that specifically stated that Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin? I'm still waiting for either you or Teribus to furnish me with a link because I certainly would like to read it.

Teribus provided me with facts and figures, yes, but was presenting them as "this is proof of what Iraq had and here is the UN saying so" but all he furnished was the mop-up questions that still existed ever since Iraq had disarmed by 90-95%. They were not saying Iraq had any of that stuff, they were saying there hangs a question of whether Iraq still had that stuff or if they ever really had it or in what quantities--they wanted to and needed to investiagte as per paragraph 7 of Resolution 687.

That was what the inspections were set up for--to find what else may have been left in order to determine how much of the accusations leveled at Iraq in Resolution 1441 were true. The inspectors had found nothing at the time Bush ordered the invasion which put an end to the inspections.

Since that time, nothing further has turned up. A few people like Rick Santorum tried the same tack you and Teribus are taking now and were shot down not by liberals, dems and antiwar terrorist sympathizers but by the State Dept itself. The bottom line is nothing has been found that vindicates the Bush administration's charges until which time they shall remain falsehoods.