An Interesting Contrast (again):

The BBC and The American Thinker go hunting for information about Iraq nukes. Funny how things coincide like that. The BBC had the bright idea of asking the man in charge of their development.

So funny, in fact, that I decided to investigate the source of the American Thinker story- assuming that I could be sure that the other fellow was simply one of the Baathist regime's trusted men. You get a different perspective on what one of the American Thinker's sources, Prof. Dombey, said when you read that he was an advisor to Charles Kennedy, and, far from emphasising Saddam's nuclear threat, he was trying to discredit the uranium from Niger story.

However, I think that NewsMax (who mediated the Dombey remarks) have a good point in quoting Charles Duelfer when he said to Congress earlier this year that 'the Iraqi scientists were "preserving and expanding [their] knowledge to design and develop nuclear weapons." '. Prof. Dombey inadvertently set people thinking by talking about the amount of natural uranium Saddam was allowed to retain, allegedly under UN supervision, and the number of bombs you could make with it.

Some would say it's six to one, and half a dozen of the other in this game of asserting and denying Saddam's WMD threat- but it's interesting to have confirmed once again where the BBC stand. No mention of Charles Duelfer's comments there, just 'pure', 'unadulterated', official Baathist.