[nicky g]

"You do realize that all inspectors had been repeatedly kicked out of Iraq right? There was no real monitoring. "

They were withdrawn once, by the UN itself in the run up to the American bombardment. They had been back for a while before the war. The seals on this type of material were not broken during their absence. Furthermore they might never have had to leave had the US and UK not been placing their own intelligence agents, who among other things used the inspections as a cover to pick targets for allied airstrikes, in the inspection teams.

"World Class Monitoring."

Satellite monitoring was not the only method available to them. It's also not at all clear if this quote refers to now or before the invasion, or both. Furthermore most of this stuff would not need regularly monitoring; it consisted largely not of weapons but of equipment and components that could be used to restart a weapons programme. Even if it was a year before anyone noticed they were gone, Iraq could not have done much with much of them in that time. Now however, they are gone permanently and whoever had them has all the time in the world to use them or sell them to others to improve their programmes.

This was never even part of the case for war; the US as much as anybody else was not complaining that these sites were not adequately monitored.

"No nuclear program for sure."

Literally no intelligent source believes any longer that Iraq had a functioning nuclear programme for years prior to the war. It is well known that it had monitored sites which stored domestically produced yellowcake uranium (which incidentally is virtually useless in making a nuclear bomb without highly advanced technology that Iraq didn't have access to), and that it had had such a programme before the first gulf war. Those sources are most certainly where the radioactivity came from; it has been established for over a year that those sites were amongst others looted during the war.

Look, knock yourself out arguing about this and making stuff up in the hopes of covering your mistake. You quite clearly don't understand the first thing about the WMD situation in Iraq. You posted something thinking it showed that the NYT had admitted Iraq had clandestine WMD programmes/equipment prior to the war; now that your mistake has been explained to you you're using factually incorrect stalling arguments and arguing that in your view inadequate monitoring arrangements that were well known and settled upon prior to the war somehow justified it, when these were never part of the case for war. Soon you'll be making up your own private definitions for well understood terms again to further stall the argument. There's no point taking this further with you.