Kamel made a statement about the destruction of weapons. He went home, and was immediately killed by Saddam. Other defectors during this time were telling completely different stories. Nobody had any way to really verify things one way or the other. Kamel could not provide evidence other than his simple statement that his allegations about the destruction were true. In light of the times--1995--what makes him more reliable a witness than anyone else, as opposed to a plant, or worse?

Naturally, the antiwar groups would believe defectors that match their agenda, and not the others. Why? The intelligence agencies--five years before Bush's election--chose to go the other way with the worst case assumptions, and this information is what Clinton eventually went with. Unlike the antiwar groups, the CIA and the President actually have some responsibility for national security.

It's worth remembering that after 9/11, the Left beat the crap out of the CIA for NOT making worst case assumptions before that day.

The Left is hammering us with 20-20 hindsight, which is patently ridiculous. Had we not invaded Iraq we still wouldn't know what was going on.

Personally, I see the transcript as a laundry list of Saddam's overwhelming ambition to possess these weapons, and proof that had the original Gulf War never happened, he'd be sitting on nukes right now. Oddly, I remember many people who are yelping about the Iraq invasion who were just as hard over against the Gulf War too. Of course, this is conveniently forgotten now.

Hamel also said that when the heat was off, Iraq would ramp production right back up again. I suppose that's irrelevant to you.