If Saddam truly did not have WMD, he could have proven it by giving the UN inspectors complete access and complying with the UN resolutions. Perhaps Saddam didn't want to reveal his lack of WMD's for being perceived as weak to his neighbors. Perhaps he also thought the US would never invade Iraq and depose him.
At any rate, given the climate after 9/11, and the intelligence provided to Bush, it would have been irresponsible for the President not to act against Saddam. If the US had been hit with a nuclear 9/11, and it later came out Bush had this intelligence and did not act, I think it would have been an impeachable offense.
Without a doubt Kerry will be pounding on this in tomorrow's debate. I hope Bush does a better job of responding to these charges, or he will continue to slip in the polls.
Indy, you are right on, but I fear that Bush will begin a slow oozing down in the polls no matter what he says tomorrow night. He has given the Johns exactly what they wanted: a blanket statement that no WMDs existed.
I think that we will be able to trace this year's race to two events: the first W/Lurch debate (and how Rove screwed it up) and the admission that there were no WMDs (which has Rove's fingerprints all over it).
If I am wrong, and W wins by more than a whisker, than I owe Karl Rove a well-deserved apology.