Repeating your previous post does nothing to help your case. I understand your sarcasm, but your point is apparently that since Iraq had--and, indeed, admitted to having--WMDs at one time, it is a logical given that they still had them at the point of invasion. My post was merely in answer to your question of why some people doubt that, and why the burden of proof should be on our President (whether it should or shouldn't be is not something I am weighing in on, personally, but hopefully you can understand why some people think it should be).
As for the sarin shell, it seems that it was indeed Iraqi, but quite old. Whether it was produced before or after Iraq claimed to have no more production taking place I have no idea. While it does lend credence to the administration's claim that not all WMDs were destroyed, it does little to show that Iraq was a danger (as I said before, proper storage of sarin was not something Iraq was capable of; after such a period of time, this shell was no longer particularly dangerous, from the reports I've read). Of course, time will tell.