<snip on my part, on Steven's>
>>http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/011803A.wrp.cnn.htm
>
> Marta, can you confirm this in a mainstream source? Any chance the press will pick it up?
Obviously, I'm not Marta - but the book in question is an extended interview with Scott Ritter. Pitt is a Boston school teacher - a good writer, really moderate and restrained in tone; comes across (in writing) as extremely sane and sensible. He seems to get his facts right. So by me, he's respectable; by the mainstream press I'm not so sure.
But there are only three factual statments,, one of them uncertain according to Pitt.
1) There is no distinction between chemical warheads and other types of warheads when empty. I can think of exceptions - sarheads that combine two harmless chemicals on impact that then become harmful in combination But no one has said the warheads are of this type. If the statement if valid in general, with only a few exceptions, it seems that there must be lots of people we can verfiy this with, or who will refute it if not true.
2) That these weapons are allowed Iraq by the treaty. Again, should be easy to verify or refute.
3) That Iraq included these in the December declaration. Pitt says this is according to Ritter - and he certainly has the contacts with Ritter. Pitt also says this is unconfirmed, so I would take it as unproven until confirmed. In short, if you are skeptical (and skeptical is always a good thing to be) redo the research. 1) should be easy for anyone who has a contact witht the right experstise. 2) should be easy to confirm for anyone with access to a copy of the (very public) treaty. 3) is unveriaviable, and you should await confirmation before affirming.