The Jerusalem Post claims that a Iraqi chemical weapons factory has been seized, but the report was not corroborated by any other media outlet, and MSNBC television reported that the story was false. (UPDATE: New York Times reports the story as false.)
A MSNBC article points out that Bush's insistence on WMD as justification for the war leaves him vulnerable:
A scarcity of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq would have the potential to create both relief and concern for the administration. Though it is unmitigated good news that such weapons have not been used against U.S. troops, the absence of such weapons would raise questions about the rationale for war.
Bush, in his weekly radio address yesterday, again mentioned Iraq�s weapons of mass destruction as justification for war and listed their removal as the primary mission. �Our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein�s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people,� he said.
A senior U.S. defense official said it is vital to Bush�s political objectives to find and make a credible display of evidence of forbidden weapons programs �very, very fast.� At the same time, career disarmament specialists and outside experts said it is far too soon to expect results from such a hunt when the assault to take control of the country has just begun.
And an SF Gate article points out that Iraq hasn't even fired one scud yet, despite earlier reports:
Despite some erroneous reports on Thursday, the Iraqis have apparently not fired any of the banned Scud-B missiles, which were their most damaging weapon during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.
Hussein's forces have apparently fired no more than a dozen shorter-range missiles, although they were believed to have had hundreds in southern Iraq and were expected to lob many of them into allied forces in Kuwait.
As I noted earlier, I have been unconvinced from the beginning that Saddam's WMD could pose any real threat, but I did expect that he would actually have some, and have used them by now.
Which brings me back to my question posed earlier - if Saddam never had any WMD left, then what is the legal implication regarding UN Resolution 1441?