Slightly mystified, Carrol, when? and where? did I infer, or quote from the article you provided the link to?

Are you referring to my statement, "The evidence of Iraq's possession of WMD was provided by UNSCOM - it was not something "cooked up" by either the US or UK"

If you are, then my point regarding the article being misleading is made. Phyllis Bennis, in her article makes references to UNSCOM reports of November 1998, but choses not to make any reference at all to the UNSCOM Report to the UN Security Council of January 1999 which detailed the following items that were known to exist (documented and declared by the Iraqi Authorities) but which could not be accounted for:

Up to 360 tonnes of bulk chemical warfare agent, including 1.5 tonnes of VX nerve agent.

Up to 3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, including approximately 300 tonnes which, in the Iraqi chemical warfare programme, were unique to the production of VX.

Growth media procured for biological agent production (enough to produce over three times the 8,500 litres of anthrax spores Iraq admits to having manufactured).

Over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.

Her use of terms, to describe the acomplishments of UNSCOM is also clever. Note she says, "...UNSCOM, the agency still managed to find and destroy the overwhelming majority of Iraq's weapons sites."

What she wished to infer was that UNSCOM had successfully disarmed Iraq, which of course was categorically not the case according to UNSCOM. Remember the whole point of the article was to support the lifting of UN sanctions, which the Author ties to disarmament. In what she says, she specifically mentions Iraq's weapons sites - but no mention of existing stocks of precursor material, weaponised agent, munitions or delivery systems - no mention of the status of programmes directed at the development of WMD - As I originally stated, the article is inaccurate, selective, incomplete.

By the way Carrol - I most certainly did read the article.