...is irrefutable.

To date we have not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

We've not found the 1.4 tons of VX nerve agent, 20,000 chemical capable artillery shells, 25,000 litres of anthrax, 12-20 Scud missiles, mobile biological warfare laboratories and chemical and biological weapons "deployable within 45 minutes" Iraq was alleged to have had."

One would think that if the Iraqis actually had this stuff, we would have found even just a smidgen of this stuff by now, especially since we were so certain they had it. No one has ever stated how it was we knew for certain they possessed such weapons. We've never seen the Bush administration's evidence. Our current inability to find anything remotely consistent with this claim suggest that it may have been all bluster and propaganda. We shall see if this is true or not. But the fact that Bush administration officials are backpedalling bigtime is not a good sign.

We know for certain that U.S. and U.K intelligence services were duped by documents asserting evidence of a non-existent nuclear weapons program in Iraq. We've never seen the administration's asserted evidence that Iraq currently possesses chemical and biological weapons. And I doubt that the BBC is misquoting Mr. Standish of Jane's Intelligence Digest.

So the question would be what is it specifically that you think is inaccurate in this BBC article?