1) US Government hasn't confirmed his death,
Means nothing. They are in much the same dilemma that we are in.
However, one of the Fox reporters just said that their contacts within the intelligence agencies strongly suspect that Saddam is either dead or severely wounded.
This generally agrees with what I have already concluded. (Those CIA guys must be pretty sharp [grin].)
2) Iraqis have fired SCUDS, which are usually under centralized control,
Centralized control by Saddam could have been delegated in preparation for the war--just as he ordered chemical munitions to be passed out.
In fact, Saddam may have someone already acting quietly as his successor--even if it is not clear to him what he should be doing. In any case, your argument has no force, IMHO.
3) Nobody in Bagdad has tried to claim credit for SH's (I love the OTHER things this acronym can stand for) death in an effort to position himself as a post-war leader.
I'm not sure anyone who is left would want to be a high-profile post-war leader. Even if I were an America-hating fanatic grieving over the loss of Brother Saddam (and trying to keep the war effort going in his name), I would not be too thrilled about claiming his Presidency at this auspicious time.
With Saddam dead, reality will begin to set in.
***
So, I think you do need to consider the data point which the early report of Saddam's "wounding" constitutes. (And I think that if he was badly "wounded," then he was probably wounded to death.)