Your arguement, Bruce, is nonsense...

Why the heck were the inspectors sent back to Iraq??? Can you answer that???

And, in terms of simple logic, please spare us any answer that involves Saddam havin' to prove he didn't have something... This is basic logic here... One can never prove that one does not have something...

But, for the sake of discussion, if one could then still why would an inspection team be sent to Iraq??? I mena, if Saddam could have proved he didn't have the stuff then having inspectoras there or not wouldn't have mattered one way or another...

But I guess that if we carry illogic to its extreme if you believe that one can prove they don't have something then by not seeing anything (as in inspecting) then that would be added proof that nothing was there...

I tell ya what, bruce... Yer a purdy smart guy but on this one you have chosen the diog that not only won't hunt but couldn't find his tail in the dark... I mean, you arguments are badly flawed... Basic Logic 101...

Bill D, being a Philosophy major, might be able to explain it better but no matter... There is a point in time when defending an undefendable position, while considered honorable by some, really becomes a drag on the rest of yer arguments...

You are there...

B~