It's one thing to say Saddam had WMD and admit that it's an assumption, it's another to try to make it look like it's based on solid evidence, when it's really just based on Saddam not having accounted for them.
"Saddam has not accounted for all WMD" or "Saddam probably has WMD" is NOT the same as "Saddam definitely has WMD", or "we have proof that Saddam has WMD".
Most intelligence agencies thought Saddam probably had WMD. Only a few arrogant ones said they were sure. And even the CIA gave a mixed assessment that Bush bastardized and distorted by turning likelihoods into certainties.
75% probability is NOT equal to certainty.
"We know he had em cause he used em" is logic that only works on hillbillies. The question is "did he have em in the last couple of years?"
Wow... Talk about a lack of reasoning... Here are a number of facts that have never been disputed.
Fact #1. Iraq had active biological and chemical weapons programs.
Fact #2. Iraq used chemical weapons on more than one occasion.
Fact #3. The cease fire agreement in the "first Gulf War" was dependant on the unfettered access of UN weapons inspectors, and the accounting for, and destruction of, all weapons of mass destruction, and the programs to develop those weapons.
Fact #4. Iraqi officials repeatedly hindered the inspections, and never gave an accounting of the weapons.
Hmmm... Let's see. Given these facts, it is well within reason that he still has weapons hidden, especially given the fact that Iraq had 8 months to hide anything incriminating before the invasion began.
It's a good thing that Louis Pasteur didn't "reason" like this troll... Since he couldn't see germs, then they must not have been causing illness. And it's reasoning like his that allowed North Korea to become a nuclear power.
Mark