You folks have found a darling in Scott Ritter, no doubt about it. I believe, though Bobert, Ritter made those remarks to the Iraqi Parliment, not the British Parliment (perhaps he did to both but I'm not aware of it). Scott fails to point out that he accepted $400,000 stipend to produce a documentary on the subject from a wealthy Muslim in the eastern (I think) part of the U. S. That could affect his credibility a bit I think. Also, Ritter presented testamony before the U. S. Congress when the inspectors left Iraq warning of the danger of Saddam having weapons of mass destruction. No inspections have taken place since 1998. What proof does he have Saddam doesn't have them now? Maybe Saddam told him so? Yeah, right.

Neither Israel or India is the subject here. Neither of them pose a threat to their neighbors (discounting Pakistan and the Palestinians)or the rest of the world. They have the weapons, but do not have the record of aggretion Saddam has.

Why is it that when you folks, are confronted with the facts about Iraq not living up to it's agreements, you immediately want to refer back to something that happend years ago? Or point out that other nations have not lived up to their agreements. What agreements did Israel and India not live up to anyway? Maybe Tahati hasn't lived up to it's U.N. agreements too! Anybody know? Iraq is the subject, and Iraq is the problem.

DougR