[cwb]

This is one of the big questions that I have yet to see answered: Where are the weapons that "Saddam" claimed he had...and that UNCSOM accounted for. In 1995, after Saddam's son-in-law tunred on him, Saddam was forced to account for his program. While the UN said they detroyed most of them by the time they left in 1998, even they admit that they only got between 95-98% of them. What was left, according to them, was still a subsantial amount which is that laundry list that Bush and Blair quoted in their speeches.

Even as Ritter addmitted in his 1998 testimony before Congress, Saddam could easily reconstitute his program within 6 months. It only takes small samples of material to grow and cultivate new stock. And even if we assume Saddam destroyed what was left...without the presence of UN inspectors, other experts have said that these "destroyed" materials would still leave trace elements in the sand (or wherever they disposed of it) that would confirm this claim. Yet no such records or proof existed that Saddam destroyed his own stockpile. There are still alot of unanswered questions.

[prairiebreeze]

Saddam could easily reconstitute his program within 6 months. It only takes small samples of material to grow and cultivate new stock.

This is the latest speculation in the articles that I've read recetently. Remember the "make new weapons in 45 minute comment" that landed Blair in such hot water?

Yet no such records or proof existed that Saddam destroyed his own stockpile.

Lots of stuff was set fire to and destroyed in Baghdad, and heaven knows where else, just before our troops got there. I don't expect we'll see much documentation about much of anything.

Yes, it was a substantial amount that was felt to be unaccounted for.

Prairie