Teribus---...."the answer to that is fairly simple...." Yes---quite so, if we all believed as you seem to, that Saddam did have "weapons of mass destruction". He obviously didn't. [Though I do suspect that there is still some backroom scheming going on to try to come up with something like "proof" that he did.] Suppose----if in some admittedly fantastic scenario, there had been Iraqi armies approaching the suburbs of New York. Would George Bush hesitate for one single moment to unleash HIS weapons of mass destruction in defence of the capital of the USA? Or would he persist in the assertion that he had none? You know the answer to that one! So what evidence is there to make any thinking person believe that Saddam would have hesitated?

LITTLE HAWK----
I am working presently with an unfamiliar and extremely "sticky" keyboard.

    I think I can claim to be a much better user of format---and the English language---than my recent contributions have indicated.
    The opinions have expressed----well, I must [reluctantly!] concede the right of others around to contradict those, if they see fit!!! :-)!!