"My understanding is that the world leaders DID believe he had/was trying to develop the weapons, there just wasn't enough hard evidence to support it."

Q: And why would world leaders believe something for which there was no hard evidence?

A: Because for moths they were relentlessly fed sexed-up intelligence and outright lies by the "leader of the free world".

Remember how all the right-wing commentators demanded that the anti-war folks apologize after we "won" the war in Iraq (even though no one as anti-war because they thought we would lose)? Quite the contrary, many were anti-war because we believed that a)there was no evidence that Iraq had weapons that presented an direct or immediate threat to the US, and b) there's more than a little hypocrisy in an invasion of a country who MIGHT (despite the lack of hard evidence) have WMDs by a country who has more WMDs than the rest of the world combined. Still no evidence of WMDs. In fact, the hunt has been abandoned hasn't it? Shall WE now demand apologies?

And, for the record, I believe the killing of Nick Berg was a hideous atrocity. I hope that we Americans are better than that. I hope our leaders are better than that. I will not feel that we have won if we BECOME that to win.