NRO - Disappearance & Blame, by Andy McCarthy

If what the Times says is right, isn't that implicitly an indictment of UNSCOM and further proof that the President was right to remove the monstrous Saddam regime?

...Let's take a look at Security Council Resolution 687 (April 3, 1991), which imposed the terms that ended the Gulf War. ...As I read it, Iraq was required, among other things, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of . . . [a]ll ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities[.]" One might think that what the Times describes as "powerful conventional explosives--used to … make missile warheads" were a fairly "related major part" of ballistic missiles.

In addition, with respect specifically to nukes, Iraq was required "not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any subsystems or components[,]" and, to the extent it had such items, present them for "urgent on-site inspection and the destruction, removal or rendering harmless as appropriate of all items specified above." Again, a detonator would seem to be a fairly important component of a nuclear bomb.

...if the weaponry is as frightening as the Times suggests and Saddam actually had it--that is, if it had not been destroyed, removed or rendered inert in the decade or so during which the inspectors were "monitoring" it--how effective were the inspections?