Hesiod...oh, Hesiod... Remember Hesiod? The astonishingly naive guy who thought Saddam was "for real this time"? When last we met, I pointed out that Iraq had tried to weasel out of the "unconditional" part of weapons inspections by indicating that there would be limits after all. Hesiod's response was marvelous in its willful self-delusion:

Have the inspectors been prevented from going anywhere yet? Write me back when there's an issue. --Hesiod

Of course, the official statement from Iraq was only a formality. The presidential palaces are again off limits to the weapons inspectors:

Iraq reversed course Saturday and said it would not abide by any new U.N. resolution allowing weapons inspectors access to key presidential compounds.

Now, this is a pretty clear cut indication that Iraq - again - is not willing to play ball with the UN. Hesiod in his own words spelled out what this result means:

Iraqi officials were telling CNN and others, off the record, that they were going to allow the inspectors to go anywhere they wanted. Steven is correct that we have to wait and see. Skepticism about Saddam is healthy and prudent. Cynicism, given the circumstances and the stakes, is overkill. We should hold Saddam to his statements and push. If he fails to live up to them, then we have grounds for an attack. I think he'll do what he says because he has no other choice in the matter. Steven doesn't. He thinks Saddam is an irrational nutcase. We'l see who's right in a couple weeks, won't we?

Well, Hesiod? What about it? Do you have any integrity at all - will you admit your mistake? When faced with an error as clear cut as this one, you need to admit that you were utterly and totally wrong, and that Den Beste and the warbloggers were right. Otherwise, I think it'd only be right for people to throw these words back in your face the next time you feel like opining on Iraq...kinda of like the way we call Phil Shropshire a wannabe terrorist...