a further thought
Regarding my previous post:
I can't believe I'm the first to think of this idea--it seems elementary spycraft within the reach of anyone who's read a Tom Clancy novel. Now, maybe there's a reason this plan wouldn't work, but absent such a suggestion, one could draw the conclusion that the Administration could provide the inspectors with some gold- (or at least bronze-) plated intelligence, yet for some reason chooses not to.
Another reasonable conclusion, of course, could be that the Administration doesn't really have the evidence it says it has.
Update: In the comment thread to an post from earlier today, anna points to her example of what evidence used to look like, back during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Now, when folks like me and anna use a phrase like "burden of proof" or "reasonable doubt," hawks generally take umbrage, noting--correctly--that Saddam is not a US citizen and does not enjoy those rights. True enough, but it isn't about Saddam; the citizens of this country are entitled to see the evidence the Administration claims it has.
Consider: A wacky bunch called Clonaid claimed to have produced the world's first human clone, repeatedly promised to pony up the proof, and then repeatedly ducked doing so. After a while, people stopped taking them seriously. Now, Bush's bunch have been making a lot of claims with regard to Iraq with no more evidence to show, and for a lot longer. The time must come when they no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt.