In your Feb. 15 editorial, you seem to belittle the progress made by U.N. inspectors in Iraq by writing that France, China and Russia “seized on those meager” results to pursue the inspection. On the other hand, you characterized Powel’s assessment as more realistic. What is so realistic about saying: “More inspectors – sorry, not the answer.” What’s the answer then? War?
 
It is hoped that the message sent from inside the Security Council chamber and on the streets of cities all over the world to the warmongers in this country was loud and clear. Which is better? To kill thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians or continue the inspections until Iraq is totally disarmed?
 
It is true that the Council decided on a two-step approach, as France suggested. This doesn’t entail that the second step should be taken now, given the fact that Hans Blix’s report to the Council that day was more positive toward Iraq than the one he gave two weeks ago.
 
It is legitimate to ask: Why this administration is so eager to go to war? What is it that Bush see that the rest of the world doesn’t see? Is it oil by any chance?
 
It is hypocritical on the part of Bush to demand that Saddam Hussein respect international law while he shows no compunction in breaking it, since he keeps repeating that the US will go to war with or without an authorization from the Security Council. It is his credibility, not that of the UN that is at stake.