>No, actually it makes perfect sense in a sort of Machiavellian way. The first priority was to remove Sadam (with a line on the oil). So, use fake WMD's to convince the American people to get behind the strike. Then pretend to search for WMD's (in fact, have the soldiers search regardless of your knowing they won't find anything) so people will believe that you believed they were there. Then, tell everybody that you really thought there were WMD's - I mean why would you search for them if you knew they weren't there, and finally say the war was really about bringing democracy to Iraq anyway, so what difference does it make whether there were WMD's or not.
>
>Now, I'm not saying that this is really what happened, but I can see that the scenario could certainly happen.

If that was true, then anything is possible.

How about this...Saddam thought he had WMDs becuase his men were too afraid to tell him otherwise for he might cut their throats for not having WMDs. You know.... shoot the messenger because saddam wants hear only good news.

That would explain why he acted like he had the dreaded weapons and why he was playing hide and seek with the inspectors before the war.

I can see this scenario happening more then yours.

Sorry this wasn't meant for you Tracy.