This is by way of a response to both TTR and Jim McCallan:

Jim, if the "World and it's dog truly believed that SH was harmless, why was UNSC Resolution 1441 passed unanimously?" - good enough indication for you?

If those charged with the responsibility of looking after the safety and security of nations only relied on tangible evidence, then, nine times out of ten, they would end up on the losing side. Given any situation relating to national security, you run with what intelligence you have, to ignore it could only ever be regarded as the height of incompetance and extremely foolish. The poor state of US "on the ground" intelligence is largely down to decisions sanctioned by President Jimmy Carter during his term of office.

Dr. Hans Blix's book? Short of money - doubt it. Axe to grind - doubt it. The affable Dr. Blix has a very good reason for writing his book, he's got to get his side across and in print before people start asking him some very tough questions. The following should be remembered with respect to Dr. Blix:

1. He was one of the main contributers to the original 1999 UNSCOM Report, which clearly stated what stockpiles of WMD, WMD pre-cursors, weapons systems and WMD development programmes the Iraqi's had running. Was that report a lie? It was after all compiled through evidence gathered by the inspection teams themselves and from information submitted by the Iraqi Authorities themselves.

2. He was the one who quite categorically stated that that the "Full and factual declaration" submitted to the UN Security Council on the 7th December 2002, was inaccurate, incomplete and could not be trusted.

3. He was the man who, armed with a mandate that required full, pro-active co-operation, on the part of the Iraqi Authorities, succeeded in down-playing every instance of "material breach", while commenting on the lack of Iraqi co-operation in every report he made to the UN Security Council as head of UNMOVIC.

4. He was the man who, on the departure of his teams from Iraq in March 2003, stated that his efforts to find the outstanding stockpiles of WMD, or establish what had happened to them, should have been given more time (Clear indication that he thought at that time there was something there to find?) 100 days later, he goes on-air stating that there were probably no WMD in Iraq - A bit bloody late for that sort of statement Dr. Blix. Why didn't he come out with that in March? He had no further information than he had then - Job security?

While many on this topic refer to comments made by Richard Clarke, trusted security advisor, and anti-terrorism expert. The comments made by Berger and Tenet are studiously ignored - are they somehow deemed unqualified? are they considered incompetent? TTR, Clarke said that the difference lay between "urgent" and "important". The fact that all the principal advisors and experts remained in place, with the exception of Samuel Berger, who was replaced by Rice, I would think that provides a pretty fair indication that those in place (Clarke included) were quite happy with the state of play - don't you? If not then you automatically call Clarke's integrity into question.