>>If that were indeed the case there would have been traces, plus the blatantly obvious, if it was buried it could be exhumed - True?, as nothing was found in this manner Ritter's contention above does not appear so convincing.<<

As usual, you're not paying attention. They found plenty of dismantled weapons. Soldiers even found an IED that was an old military bomb wired to explode. The problem was that it was filled with sarin and could never have exploded like a conventional weapon. Whoever wired it up obvioulsy did not know what was in it. How did he get it? Obviously, it was sold off after a weapons system was dismantled.

And remember Bush invaded before teh inspectors could finish their jobs so your point is once again blunted.

>>If that were the case why was this clear unequivocal statement not made by UNSCOM, of which Scott Ritter was a part in 1995.<<

They did. Blix had stated unequivocally that they had found nothing. What were you watching during the run-up to the war? Old reruns of The Avengers?? The UN inspectors protested that they needed more time and had not found any evidence of any WMD program in progress.

>>If indeed UNSCOM was "monitoring the totality of Iraq's industrial infrastructure with the most technologically advanced, the most intrusive arms control regime in the history of arms control." How come they were continually baulked by Iraq's deception and intimidation measures. I find it rather odd that Ritter does not mention those.<<

What deception and intimidation measures?? Read the link, buddy. Ritter answers every concern you're raised albeit not in the manner you want to read so that's why you won't read it. There were no intimidation or deceptive measures and he makes clear that Saddam never booted out the inspectors but that Clinton did. This man was there and one of the chief in charge, I think he knows something of what he's talking about. Unlike you.

>>Greatest threat to United States of America identified as an attack mounted by an international terrorist group, with the covert backing of a rogue state with access to actual WMD, WMD technology, WMD material.<<

Which had nothing to do with Iraq.

>>I would disagree with Scott Ritter when he states that Iraq represented a threat to no one when it came to weapons of mass destruction.<<

And, of course, you're so much more an expert than Scott Ritter.

>>Please refer to my opening paragraph. By 2004 Blix is calling blah, blah, blah....... What a great pity the stupid dithering bastard couldn't have been a bit more forthcoming about that earlier then wasn't it.<<

A few posts before you were telling me to check out what this stupid dithering bastard said about WMD in Iraq believing it would support your contentions. Unfortunately for you, I did check them out and they do not support you and so now, the men you were citing to me as an authority whose findings could not be argued with is suddenly a stupid dithering bastard and Scott Ritter is just so wrong.

Where i come from, we call that back pedaling.