[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The thing I've never really understood is how the administration got away with telling us what a grave danger Saddam Hussein was in the wake of Hussein's regime falling apart as soon as we went in. If Hussein's military capabilities were such a danger to us, why didn't he use those capabilities to save his regime? The "war" was a cakewalk for us and Husssein himself was found hiding in a hole.

What makes no sense is that a man who was a threat to our way of life, and who knew for months that his country would be attacked, had so little defense for the invasion. What sense would hiding his weapons in Syria make? When would he be able to use them?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand Saddam's thought process at all.

It looks to me like he was faced with choosing between:

A) Let the inspectors in, keep regime/palaces etc., after all, you don't have any WMD's to hide anyway right?

B) Don't let the inspectors in, lose regime/palaces etc., have large weapons fired in your direction, end up hiding in hole.

So why in the [censored] did Saddam choose option B? What a stupid [censored]. (Unless of course he really DID have something to hide...)

Blame Bush/Right Wing Conspiracy all you want, but this never happens if Saddam doesn't repeatedly fail to comply with UN resolutions...and for what?

[/ QUOTE ]

At the end though, Saddam did allow weapons inspectors unfettered access, we kept claiming he wasn't making complete disclosures of his WMD and thats why he was violating UN Resolutions. However, it looks like he was making complete disclosures, since we haven't found any.