I agree on Blix. He testified that there was no definitive evidence of WMD, but he assessed that it was a matter of weeks or a few months to find out, just before the invasion. Bush then promptly kicked out the inspectors from Iraq and spent the next 8 years saying that Saddam kicked the inspectors out (which Hussein had done, but not before the invasion) and the U.S. media let Bush spread this obfuscation with no challenge.
I've never given much credence to the idea that "gaps" in information are evidence of obfuscation. If you've ever lived in a Third World country, you know that documentation is nearly always gappy. Just like a murder defendant whose alibi can't be verified doesn't mean that that in itself is "evidence" of the crime.
Clif, try reading the NYT account. Very sober and credible.
I agree on Blix. He testified that there was no definitive evidence of WMD, but he assessed that it was a matter of weeks or a few months to find out, just before the invasion. Bush then promptly kicked out the inspectors from Iraq and spent the next 8 years saying that Saddam kicked the inspectors out (which Hussein had done, but not before the invasion) and the U.S. media let Bush spread this obfuscation with no challenge.
I've never given much credence to the idea that "gaps" in information are evidence of obfuscation. If you've ever lived in a Third World country, you know that documentation is nearly always gappy. Just like a murder defendant whose alibi can't be verified doesn't mean that that in itself is "evidence" of the crime.