[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Thanks for the summary, but we'll still have some RATS who will dismiss it, demanding "hard proof" before signing off on an attack. And the House of Kofi will ignore this evidence, of course.

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Oops! Sorry for the double-post. My computer is acting weird this morning.

[BlessedBeGod]

If you check out the forum on the BBC's web page, the Brits are dismissing it, too. They say it's old news, there's no proof, and it's just a cover for the US and UK to get oil.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

...demanding "hard proof" before signing off on an attack...

This "demand" from the anti-war pro-islamist left continues to perculate while any open minded review of facts demonstrate that:

1) Iraq possesses Chem/Bio weapons
2) Iraq is working non-stop on Nuke weapons
3) Iraq has used WMD's in the past
4) Iraq's WMD program is fundamentally designed to dupe inspectors

My question is what "hard proof" are they asking for? There is no question on the above facts, but it's impossible to demand "hard proof" that he will use WMD's in the future.