"However, Saddam did not do anything that embarrassing and inconvenient."

Why would he have? The "anti-bush at any cost" had all but promised him that he would not only NOT have to step down, but that the UN would make no effort to enforce the resolutions against hime. With that king of encouragement, it is no wonder that he did not either step down, or throw his borders open, allowing the coalition forces in without attack.

I hold those who would rather demand that Bush NOT attack Iraq than to demand that Saddam MUST comply with the UN to be guilty of the resultant bloodshed.

I have still not received ANY explaination of why the organizers of the "anti-war" march in London prohibited the Iraqi group that wished to demand that Saddam comply with the resolutions to march with them.