[kesg]

True, and I do detect a strong whiff of hypocricy here, but Clinton hasn't been President since 2000 and lots could have happened in two years. On the other hand, I find it almost impossible to believe that if Saddam had the weapons by no later than the end of Clinton's Presidency, he destroyed them sometime afterwards (at least until just before the war began). To the contrary, he acted like someone who was hiding something.

[IvanT]

Chretien stood up in the House of Commons back then and fully endorsed attacking Iraq with the US, I remember it.

[cwb]

"On the other hand, I find it almost impossible to believe that if Saddam had the weapons by no later than the end of Clinton's Presidency, he destroyed them sometime afterwards (at least until just before the war began). To the contrary, he acted like someone who was hiding something."

Very true. Not to mention that when the UN inspectors left in 1998, they clearly stated that there were still at least 5% of these (Saddam reported) weapons not accounted for. Now 5% may not seem like alot...but as the UN and Scott Ritter even said, Saddam could easily reconstitute his WMDs in less than 6 weeks...especially if he retained any.

And this gets down to the crux of the situation: It's not so much the possession of WMDs...it's the intent and desire of the man in charge of those WMDs. Saddam's past record of aggression and willingness to use such weapons made "him" the threat. It is possible (but unlikely) that Saddam may not have had WMDs at that one moment. That, however, didn't mean he wouldn't have them in a year from now...and to ignore that is naive. While these WMDs are a threat, as long as Saddam was in charge, he was as much a threat.