'Why doesn't he provide documentation that he destroyed the weapons?'

Reading through the many blogs I check every day, I've seen, time and time again, conservatives who say that if Saddam really had destroyed the WMD's that we know we sold him, why didn't he offer any poof or documentation of it.  I've often wondered what this proof might have looked like -- is there a "international weapons destruction plant" that issues receipts for the destruction of weapons?  Or was he supposed to have photographs of the destroyed weapons?  What, exactly, would constitute proof?

Recently, though, another question occured to me.  How, exactly, do we know he didn't provide some kind of proof, and that it was among the 8,000 pages of the 12,000 page report Iraq made to the UN, that the US removed before allowing anyone else in the world to look at it?  I have to say, I have so little faith in our government that it's quite conceivable to me that they could have done precisely that, though, of course, I can't say for sure how likely it is.

A report in the Sunday Herald from Scotland (posted to CommonDreams.org) notes that Kofi Annan seemed to regret having allowed the US to edit the only original copy of the dossier, and that other nations had complained about being denied the ablity to see the full file.  The US, however, claimed that it needed to remove the pages because they were "'risky' in terms of security on weapons proliferation"

It is important to note that the five permanent memebers of the Security Council - which include the US, UK, France, Russia and China - were allowed to see the entire dossier, but none have given any indication of what may or may not have been included in the information provided.  France, Russia and China, however, were never in favour of this war - even though they had seen the full dossier - which means that whatever was in that report didn't convince them Iraq was a threat or in material breach of resolution 1441, and may have helped convince them that it wasn't an immediate enough threat that war was justified at that time. I have to admit that I'm not sure exactly why they would stay silent if there had been evidence that Iraq had destroyed any weapons they might have had, but we also don't know what we said we would do if they allowed any of this supposedly "risky" information to be made public.  (And how "risky" can it be if we will let China see it, given that they're one of the few countries left that might have the military might to at least challenge us, and we're always so worried about them getting a hold of our military secrets?) 

So, at this point, I don't know how likely it is that information on the destruction of the weapons might have been in the dossier, but it is a possiblity, and the missing pages do leave a number of unanswered questions.