[concerned about politics]

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Saddam's statements were "an attempt to divert attention from the fact that Iraq has still not shown signs that it will disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction."

Yep. Where is the paperwork that shows he has destroyed them? We already know he has them, and has used them. So where are they? Iraq? Syria?
Saddam has to prove he's destroyed them, or else we know he still has them, somewhere, and if he still has them, we have the right to stop him.

[dark_lord]

Finding no evidence of nukes is not a big suprise. We already defined WMD as chemical and/or bio-weapons. I, personally, would be quite suprised to find out that Iraq had a nuke. Why bother? Nuke development costs lots of money. Chemical weapons are cheap. Bio-weapons are cheap. If you are an evil dictator and need to manage your funds, you can get plenty of diverse weapons that can be nicely subdivided and distributed right down to the artillary round and mortar shell level, without wasting time on trying to get a damned nuke.