Actually, I was just taking up BigTime on his initial request for refutations of the quote he provided (and accidently referenced your post#2 instead of the first one). Plugged a snippet of the quote into the google.com search engine, and found the source was this guy William Blum. Other than that I am completely dispassionate on the subject. I've continued to look for refutations and have found none. Are you claiming that a substantive refutation of Blum's contentions is not possible, even in theory? I wouldn't.
Incidently, I was reading the small pox thread, in which I meant to complement you on the info you were providing (i.e. a small pox attack on the U.S. would end up infecting the world; Hussein might do it any way if he felt he was on his last legs, so any attempt to take him down would have to be a complete suprise attack).
Blum's contentions are primarily that we shouldn't demand that Iraq give up its sovereignty and that we provided the building blocks that Saddam used to make his biological weapons program.
The first contention is political science stuff, and the second contention probably is true. I think it is possible that it can be proven to be true, although I don't think we intended Saddam to convert the technology into bio warfare stuff.
But let's just imagine that there is no evidence that we supplied those materials. That still wouldn't be proof that we didn't. It would only establish that no evidence could be found. It's very difficult, if not impossible to prove a negative, which is why we put the burden on the state in criminal cases.
I guess you could argue that an alibi defense might constitute proof that someone didn't commit a particular crime, but even that would be impossible to employ by a country. "We didn't supply that stuff to Saddam, Your Honor, we were home watching TV that night with Canada" probably wouldn't be persuasive!