One bit of information to keep in mind when you're listening to all the debates about whether Iraq is in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions yet or not.

It's already been declared in material breach, by Resolution 1441:

The Security Council...

1. Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA, and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687 (1991);

If I understand the U.N. legal issues correctly, this is why, presumably, many folks argue that no additional resolution is necessary to support U.S. military force. As of now, the state-of-play, from a U.N. legal perspective, is that Iraq is in breach. If they successfully convince the U.N. inspectors that they have disarmed, and the Security Council passes another resolution declaring them in compliance, then they cease being in violation.

Until then, the default is: they're in breach. As has been said before: the burden is on them to get out of being in breach, not on the U.S. or anyone else to show that they are in breach. That's already been decided on by the full Security Council.

I'll likely have more to say on Resolution 1441 as we lead up to Blix's report on Monday; stay tuned...