Greg, Your quote above from the reference I gave was incomplete. For others reading this thread I give below the complete sentence:

"BASED on the UNSCOM REPORT to the UN Security Council in January 1999 (less than a month after leaving Iraq) and earlier UNSCOM REPORTS, we assess that when UN inspectors left Iraq they were unable to account for:"

I would beg to differ on your contention. Their assessment is based on slightly more than GUESSING.

The reference on Page 19, again you quote selectively:

"Iraq has claimed that all its biological agents and weapons have been destroyed. No convincing proof of any kind has been produced to support this claim. In particular, Iraq could not explain large discrepancies between the amount of growth media (nutrients required for the specialised growth of agent) it procured before 1991 and the amounts of agent it admits to having manufactured. The discrepancy is enough to produce more than three times the amount of anthrax allegedly manufactured."

Quoting the whole paragraph does I believe make a difference. This stuff has gone somewhere and it is up to the Iraqis to explain, document and prove where it has gone - nobody else can do that.

From the drift of your post it would appear that you are prepared to believe, and take at face value, anything coming out of Iraq, while totally disbelieving anything said by the American or British Governments. There seems to me to be a lack of balance in that approach considering the parties involved.

Another inbalance from your posting is the assumption that Scott Ritter, who contributed to the report of January 1999, is correct. Does that mean that all the others were wrong - he's the one who has changed his mind, not the others. That the specialists and intelligence communities are all wrong - I would very much doubt it on the balance of evidence. I look forward to hearing Scott Ritters rebuttal of the contents of the dossier, but there again, having sold his book and made his television apprearances, Mr Ritter has been strangely silent for the past few weeks.

You say that:

"I don't give a crap what they "think", "surmise", "guess" or "assess"- I want to know what they can document or prove before people start dying on EITHER side. "

For the general good, thank God you are not the one to decide. I say that because if what is stated in this dossier is true, you would chose to ignore it. You would then have to confront this madman in two or three years time with a much enhanced capability for causing mayhem. But there again, taking into account your criteria, there would be no confrontation, you would, in all probability, attempt to negotiate and appease him. Ask the Iranians about negotiating with Saddam Hussein, check with the United Nations his track record for agreeing to conditions and implimenting those conditions.