I just read the article (belatedly) in Le Monde concerning the exchange in the Security Council between the French and Russian foreign ministers and Colin Powell.

The thing is, we don't need any more to rely on intermediaries in the press to give us this kind of thing. The Internet gives us direct access to the texts, and in this case, if we've a decent connection we can go to the BBC website and see and here the whole thing anytime, it's archived.

I say "the BBC", because that's the one I know. It may be for all I know that the broadcasters in the USA and elsewhere provide the same free service on things like that. But anyway it's only a click away, wherever you live.

And if you actually listen to what Blix said, and maybe read it, it seems very clear that he isn't talking about an endless series of inspections (as opposed to ongoing monitoring). He's saying that he has had a significantly greater degree of cooperation over the past few weeks, and that the possibility has opened up of being able to get answers to the vital questions.

Now it may be, as sceptics have said all along, that agreeing to the whole business of inspections was a totally cynical operation, designed to fill in time until the invasion force was ready to move.

In that case it is easy to see why there should be anger at people who wish to treat the process as a serious attempt to get the true facts about the extent the Iraqis have usable weapons of mass destruction, and to ensure that they do not.

But most people in most countries do see it as a serious attempt, and want to see it given a fair chance.

If it is true that March 1st is pencilled Vito Bush and Blair's diary saying "invade Iraq" the idea that the work of the inspection team cannot be completed by that date must be very annoying.

But why the hurry? Military forces can be stood down just as quickly as they can be mobilised, and then re-mobilised if necessary. That kind of thing is just a matter of money, when you get down to it. But once the war is done you can't undo it, and bring the dead back to life.

And all this hysteria at the very idea that France might veto a motion that the USA backs. How many motions have the Americans vetoed that would have passed otherwise? I think the total just in relation to Israel and Palestine is 34 by now. It's so routine it doesn't even get in the headlines.