"omissions big enough drive a tank through"

Thus speaks an unnamed American official as quoted in today's New York Times. Here we go, into the breach, as in material breach by Iraq in its dissembling, 12,000 page nonresponse. Some particulars:

• Iraq's failure to explain what happened to 550 shells filled with mustard gas, and another 150 bombs filled with biological agents
• Britain said several months ago that Iraq had been buying "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa that could only be used in an enrichment program.
• Iraq was seeking to buy high-technology materials that the United States and Britain have said were destined for a program to enrich uranium
• From a "United Nations diplomat familiar with Iraq's submission", "They are claiming they have no new weapons of mass destruction"

No, of course not. Just the old standbys, poison gas and a nuclear weapons development program.

According to the Times article, the Bush administration has three choices:1. ask specific questions about specific weapons programs (not going to happen); 2. continue with inspections; provide intel sources and methods to the inspectorate (ha! talk about a non-starter); 3. declare a material breach by Iraq (now we're getting somewhere).

This third choice, again according to the Times, necessarily requires "proving a negative" and "winning that argument in the Security Council". Well, here's where the Times goes off the track. Why, exactly, do we need to win the argument in the Security Council? Never mind; I know. It's because the Bush team talks a lot tougher than it acts; just the opposite of what should be happening.