Brian: good point, it is indeed way off-topic. I should have been clearer in my first point: by “significant” I did not mean in numbers, but in capability. The weapons referenced in the report were pre-1991, and were in relatively small amounts. Compare this to what the UN was actually told by Colin Powell in 2003:

… as with biological weapons, Saddam Hussein has never accounted for vast amounts of chemical weaponry: 550 artillery shells with mustard, 30,000 empty munitions and enough precursors to increase his stockpile to as much as 500 tons of chemical agents… If we consider just one category of missing weaponry, 6500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq War, UNMOVIC says the amount of chemical agent in them would be on the order of a thousand tons… There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more… Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent… In 1995, as a result of another defector, we find out that, after his invasion of Kuwait, Saddam Hussein had initiated a crash program to build a crude nuclear weapon, in violation of Iraq’s UN obligations.

As you say, way off-topic. The point is relevant to L Scott’s position however: “Accounting for the weapons in order to prevent military action would have been good.” I agree, it would have been good. The problem is that, if those weapons identified by Powell did not in fact exist, then there is simply no way that anybody could possibly account for them.