I’ve been sitting on this link for days trying to find a way to explain it without going apoplectic, but I’m not sure there is one. Fafblog handles some commentary in their own inimitable way, of course, but I’d really love for someone to explain how this administration can appose the proliferation of WMDs so vehemently — hey, we went to WAR on the SUSPICIAN that Saddam had ’em — and yet also oppose the use of weapons inspectors, insisting verificationw as too expensive, too intrustive, and couldn’t guarantee compliance:

Administration officials declined to explain in detail how they believed U.S. security would be harmed by creating a plan to monitor the treaty. Arms-control specialists reacted negatively, saying the change in U.S. position will dramatically weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. Seattle Times