Whats sad is Obama has done some of the things that Bush has done, but there is a difference. We haven't invaded the country with soldiers on the ground and the only reason we have done anything is because the dictator was attacking his own people with an army.
Now the very same people who are attacking him have show it's all about politics to them, as they for years have stood up for what Bush did, even though he didn't use the information he had and instead chose to use the information that made his point.
There was no war going on during the when we attacked IRAQ and Saddam was not attacking his own people at the time.
I don't like the idea of interfering in any other countries business short of stopping mass killings and that is it, we should not be nation building. If Obama does that then he should be out in a heartbeat.
No Saddam had been ignoring what he was told to do after his stupid move in 1991
Saddam was stupid, he acted stupidly and when 9-11 occurred W said get out or else
after 18 months he took the or else
ou know you Liberals act as though 9-11 never happened and that W just woke one day and decided to go-to war
This is the U.N.
6 weeks before we invade
Where did this anthrax get off to?
Blix: weapons and anthrax still unaccounted for
3:40PM GMT 27 Jan 2003
Iraq has not yet come to genuinely accept disarmament, according to Hans Blix, the United Nations's chief weapons inspector.
Iraq has co-operated with his team on providing access but it needed to go further, Mr Blix told the UN Security Council.
He said: "It would appear from our experience so far that Iraq has decided in principle to provide co-operation on process, notably access.
"A similar decision is indispensable to provide co-operation on substance in order to bring the disarmament task to completion, through the peaceful process of inspection, and to bring the monitoring task on a firm course."
Touching on the question of how much time inspectors need, he said he shared "the sense of urgency" to achieve disarmament within "a reasonable period of time".
The UN Security Council was meeting to hear Mr Blix's first report following the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq last November.
Of the declaration of weapons made by Iraq under UN resolution 1441, he said: "Regrettably, the 12,000-page declaration does not seem to contain any new material."
Mr Blix said the declaration had failed to account for 6,500 chemical warfare bombs, adding that 12 empty chemical warheads recently found in a bunker south of Baghdad "could be the tip of the iceberg".
Iraq had also failed to prove it had destroyed all of its anthrax, Mr Blix said. There were "strong indications" that it had produced more than it had admitted.
He recalled that Iraq had declared that it produced 8,500 litres of anthrax and unilaterally destroyed the stock in the summer of 1991. But there was "no convincing evidence of destruction," he said.
He added that Iraq had not fully accounted for stocks of precursor chemicals used to make VX nerve gas. Baghdad had also lied about how close it had come to weaponising the gas in the late 1980s.
Mr Blix added that Iraq has refused to co-operate with a request from UN weapons inspectors regarding flights of U-2 spy planes for aerial imagery and surveillance.
Mr Blix, who is charged with overseeing the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles, was accompanied by Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Mr ElBaradei said that his inspectors had found no evidence that Iraq had revived its weapons programme after it was destroyed following the Gulf War.
But he said that inspectors needed more time to provide "credible assurance" that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme.
He also urged Iraq to provide more information about the pre-1991 weapons programme.
John Negroponte, the United States ambassador to the UN, said that nothing Mr Blix and Mr ElBaradei had said indicated that Iraq had disarmed. He said: "Iraq is back to business as usual."
