>>Well, ok, but Blix was talking about the fact that Sadaam professed to have destroyed the stuff but didn't have records to back it up. At no point did he even insinuate that any weapons may have been moved to Syria or anywhere else.
>
>Please! Saddam also claimed to have never gassed his own people. We later found out he was being less than truthful. So, as I've asked others who think like you... why do you sometimes believe Saddam and other times you don't? What makes you think he "destroyed the stuff?" It doesn't appear that Blix really believed him... he was demanding evidence. So why do you believe him?

Sorry, when did I say I believed Sadaam? I said he 'professed to have destroyed'. My discussion is about what Blix did or did not say. He did not say any weapons were moved, as I thought you implied in your previous post.

>
>>He also took pains to note that "there was no evidence that the Iraqis ever knew the inspectors were coming and hid material." His problem as he pointed out was gaps in information. That's a far cry from saying that they shipped weapons to Syria before the inspections.
>
>Well, what did Blix think happened to them? Just to simply say, "oops... they're missing" doesn't cut it. Where are they? If Saddam destroyed them, why doesn't he say so now?

Blix didn't say. For all I know, he might have thought the weapons were moved, or he might have thought they didn't exist any more, but that the paperwork was shoddy. I don't feel qualified to put words in his mouth. You seem not to be hampered by that issue.

>
>And BTW, I never said it was a fact they went to Syria. In fact, I've said many times Syria is one of many nearby sympathetic countries that would have made excellent choices for Saddam in 2003 and may be one in which we find the WMD.

This does imply very clearly though, that you believe they were moved, and not that they didn't exist. All I want is evidence.

>>This time around, as Blix points out, they were getting far more co-operation from the Iraquis. They were talking in terms of months now, not years, so why not? What was Bush's rush?

>Right... and the endless cycle of negotiation, promise, broken promise would still be going on 3 years later. And yes, *that's* speculation. On that's based on Saddam's previous behavior, but speculation nonetheless.

I doubt very much that there would have been 'negotiations' this time around. If Sadaam started playing games, then Bush could attack him at any time. Why not let Blix finish what he started? My guess is that Bush did not want a situation where Blix finally announced that there were no WMDs. A guess, yes, but I don't know what else explains the rush.