Nicole:

"The sophisticated deployment of biological weapons is a lot harder than people like to believe (Remember the cult that tried to infect a salad bar with influenza? Or how few people even got ill from weaponized anthrax letters? Not many countries could pull off a successful bio attack; it requires a ton of research and a lot of resources Saddam just doesn't have.) And he is unlikely to be able to hit the US significantly with either chemical or conventional weapons, although I can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios that might work with a little luck and a LOT of planning."

The first part of your contention above is true with respect to using these weapons in a "conventional" sense (They were originally conceived as tactical theatre weapons). It does take a great deal in terms of research and resources. Go along the road that the French, yourself and Bobert propose and Saddam has a sixty/forty chance of having both those necessary ingredients aplenty. Having successfully duped the weapons inspectors for a second time, the pressure will be on to lift sanctions and terminate patrols over the two existing no-fly zones.

You say that you can think of several nasty terrorist-like scenarios. Those terrorists require the same resources and material. Most important of all they need a safe and secure base to prepare and plan - they've lost Afghanistan, where are they likely to go?

You have also said:

"If Saddam had long-range rocketry, we'd know. You can't test rocketry in secret, and it's awfully hard to hide with folks pouring over daily satellite photos. We know he has SCUD capability, because he's used them before. It's reasonable to assume he still has a few stashed away at least."

We do know, or we have a very good indication from satellite photographs and from reports from defectors. Page 29 of the "Iraq Dossier" presented to the House of Commons shows a picture of the Al-Rafa/Shahiyat liquid propellant engine static test facility in Iraq. It shows a new engine test stand under construction. This new stand is larger than the current stand used for testing the engines for the Al-Samoud missile and larger than the one, dismantled by UNSCOM, for testing SCUD. Now there may be other explanations for the increase in the size of this facility, maybe soil conditions neccessitate larger foundations?, maybe it has a larger and better equipped canteen for the workforce?, or maybe they are building engines to increase the range of their missiles. In previous posts you, and others, have been totally dismissive of this evaluation - going by the votes in your House of Representatives and Senate your elected representatives they seem to have taken heed.

McGoH:

"Look. Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, and the means to deliver them. There are no indications that Saddam is suicidal, however murderous. On the other hand he could well be nuts enough to kill as many people as he can just as a last throw, if he'd going down anyway."

You obviously have not read some of his books. Besides your hypothesis ignores the possible reaction from Israel. If they, at anytime, believe that Iraq has developed a nuclear weapon, my guess is, based on past experience, they will not hesitate - In this scenario, Saddam does not have to launch an attack, the Israelis will (remember that Iraq and Iran are the only two countries in the region still holding fast to Gamal Abdul Nasser's vow to wipe the State of Israel from the face of the earth - You might not believe that - the Israelis cannot afford to share your point of view).

Don:

"Could he support and supply terrorists? Certainly. In fact, quite probably. But that's a whole different problem. Saddam is not the only one. If determined terrorists couldn't get support—and possibly WMDs—from Saddam, there are a number of other places where they could."

As I said above Al-Quaeda has lost Afghanistan, if Iraq is cleared of WMD and the research facilities and capability, then that would be one less refuge. If the above is accomplished along with a change of regime that sends a very clear message to the other likely candidates you refer to.

The continuous assumption, mainly by American contributers to this thread, that your President is foolishly charging on with this blindly "shooting from the hip", is wrong. He is handling it very well, he is in a position to negotiate the terms of the new resolution he wants from the UNSC. I believe he will get that resolution.