no new evidence of iraqi nukes
Intelligence sources believe Iraq is not as close to making a nuclear weapon as Administration officials have hinted he is.
Listen carefully for this rhetorical trick: There's little doubt that Iraq has a stockpile of chemical weapons, which are a "weapon of mass destruction" but of relatively little threat to American citizens (though they do pose a risk to US soldiers deployed in that invasion Bush hasn't made up his mind about yet). Be sure to recognize the distinction between the Administration citing Iraq's posession of WMDs--true--with the implication that Iraq has, or is about to obtain, a nuke--questionable.
And of course, even Iraq's posession of a nuke isn't necessarily causus belli--I recall both Indian and Pakistan conducting nuclear tests with no threat of invasion.
Of course, Administration official still urge that we invade now, before Saddam gets a nuke. Could it be that they insist the time is now not because a nuclear-armed Iraq would pose a threat of attack, but rather defense--that is, "regime change" would be harder to bring about if Saddam had a nuclear ace in the hole, one that he could deploy "defensively"?
In other develpments, military officials have denied that recent shipments of weapons are intended for military action against Iraq.