The fact that someone says something is the case is not evidence unless you have reason to believe what they are saying. There is no particular reason to believe anything "the military" of any country say - this isn't because of them being wicked liars and so forth, it's just part of their job to tell lies sometimes.

There's no need to speculate - if Saddam has chemical and biological or nuclear weapons, he'll use them. What's the point of holding on to them otherwise? So I very much hope it'll turn out he hasn't got them. We should know pretty soon if he uses them.

Scud missiles? To make them go further than the "legal" range he'd have to have reduced the payload and pulled out the guidance systems and so forth. To hit Kuwait with them at a time when the invading forces were hardly into Iraq it would have made much more sense to fire them from relatively close, under the "legal" limit, and with a much bigger payload. Evidence that they were fired from a much longer range would need to be pretty convincing.