"Each side of the question regarding war with Iraq feels that the other side chooses to ignore facts that they believe supports their position. "

:-)
Or else spins the known facts to suit their argument.

"The following revelation is referred to as a "smoking gun" and in my opinion it is. How do our anti-war friends see this? I assume they either feel that it is insignificant or they believe it is a natural product of the inspection process which should be continued with no set limit. "

This may be significant. I'm not militarily minded enough to analyse what impact this drone has. I agree that the discovery of this is a natural product of the process, but the rest of your sentence does not necessarily follow.
This could quite easily trigger the original Catch-22 - we're gonna nail ya if you admit to having proscribed weapons, and we're gonna nail ya if you don't admit it but we find them.

"Was it proper for Blix to bury this finding in the text of his report and not mention it in his oral remarks?"

Who knows? Blix has repeatedly stated that his job is not make judgement, that is the UN's role.
He published a big document - and made it widely available for the first time - yet gets accused of burying it? Hiding in plain sight? this argument makes no sense.

Cheers,
tony