"IT is not truthful, Teribus, to fixate on a subset of the facts tot he exclusion of other relevant facts, to ignore context, and to deny semantic overtones that were very much actively in play at the time of the original incident."

You mean like when Blix says that in one area (Allowing searches of specified locations after UN requests) Iraq was starting to comply with one of the required actions, and interpreting that as saying that Iraq was complying with the UNR, even thought he listed the other areas where Iraq was not meeting the requirements????

Oh, I forgot: You apply *different* standards depending on the answer you want to justify.


Iraq WAS a mistake- but it was Saddam's, not Bush. Had Saddam complied with the UNR ( which NO "anti-war" proponants advocated) he would have been ok: Had he thrown open his borders to the UN forces, there would have been no deaths.

But, since he WAS in violation of the UNR, and failed to meet the ceasefire requirements, he has now been removed from being a threat.


Live with it.