It's well known that, at one time, Iraq was "definitely non-compliant".
Yeah.... as recently as November, 2002 when the UNSC unanimously declared Iraq to be in material breach (also called non-compliance for cognitively dysfunctional people like yourself)..
And, in fact, even after 90 days worth of "inspections" passed by, the UNSC couldn't managed to vote to agree that Iraq had come into compliance..
And in fact, there is not one point in time that any credible analyst could claim that Iraq was in compliance..
Please name such a time, if you can...
Hell, even David Kay, although suggesting there may not be any WMDs remaining in Iraq, is not suggesting that Iraq was in compliance. He's found numerous items, and Bio-war programs that were STILL in various stages of research and development.. That's a violation of the disarmament agreement, thus meaning Iraq was no in compliance.
Being in compliance, with regard to Iraq, equates to the inspectors having confidence that they were being shown everything, told everything, and having full unhindered access.. And this is a priviledge the inspectors NEVER enjoyed. Not under UNSCOM, and not under UNMOVIC..
In fact, David Kay has also suggested that Saddam may have been duped by his scientists, who were afraid to reveal that they had destroyed all of Iraq's weapons....
And this is DIRECT EVIDENCE that Saddam had no intention of complying with UNSC binding resolutions.. Especially when his scientists and generals had to lie to him in order to make him believe they still have such WMDs in their possession.
Hawk |
