Saddam has been willing to risk his whole system and his own life rather than relinquish this goal.
Whoa! Now Hitchens totally goes off the deep end. I defy anyone to show me how Saddam has not placed his own personal survival above all. He was deterred from using WMD against either Coalition forces or Israel during Gulf War I, and his flaunting of the UN is clearly meant to preserve his own power, not to provoke a showdown--if it were, he wouldn't freakin' appear to cave every time, regardless of whether he intends to go back on his word.
I doubt that even if this evidence [of WMD, presumably] could be upgraded to 100 per cent it would persuade the sort of people who go on self-appointed missions of mediation to Baghdad.
Once again--leaving aside the fact that no new evidence has yet been presented, Hitchens just contends that his straw man wouldn't believe it anyway, so he doesn't bother presenting any.
These people further fail to see that governments now have a further responsibility to their citizens - namely to see that something is done to prevent future assaults on civilisation.
Hitchens fails to see that a democratic government has a responsibly to its citizens to offer more than bland assurances--or ominous warnings--that it's using the nation's military force in their interest. They must demonstrate it, sir, in no uncertain terms.