>>The inspections were there in an attempt to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass-destruction, yet none were found, yet Bush was still convinced, in which case, why the hell send the inspectors out there in the first place? To prove Saddam was hiding them? Whose word do we take for that?
>
>Sorry, no. I'm fairly certain that the reason that the inspectors were there was to aid the Iraqis in the compliance of 1441. They were not there to look for weapons under rocks.

Yes, Chris has just said the same thing, I'm not so sure that was made crystal clear to most people, like myself.

>When the UN and South Africa agreed to close down SA's nuclear program, it took NINE inspectors. This was not because they were particularly good at cat and mouse, it was because the South Africans essentially said "here is our plants, here is our research. We agree to close it down, help us". From the very start SA was in compliance because it cooperated fully (no doubt in exchange for lots of aid/other goodies). Iraq has NEVER been in compliance and no amount of inspectors finding any amount of proscribed weapons would change that. The French/German/Russian position of the continuing addition of inspections is not going to change this and the holding of the position by those powers is alas disengenuous at least.