>>Now, for the actual problem with your analogy, we have no reason to believe Saddam had "a gun in a drawer." We know that he used to and we took it away from him. We know that he wanted to get another "gun," but there's no evidence that he succeeded.
>
>
>But why did he act like he had them?

I've been thinking about this since someone else brought it up quite a while ago. My answer at the time was that he told the big lie in hopes of avoiding an invasion (so much for that strategy < s >).
But I've come to a different conclusion now... he DID NOT act like he had them, but we were constantly told that he had them and so we came to believe that he was "confirming" so by his words.
But look at what really transpired. He said no to inspectors, which is what any self-respecting leader or tyranical leader of a country would say. Simply on principle alone. Then he was forced to admit inspectors and they had free reign. He put a person (well spoken and apparently frank) in charge of reporting to the inspectors and the U.N. and apparently the inspectors had no problems going where they wanted to go (palaces eventually agreed too) but then PRESIDENT BUSH PULLED THE PLUG ON THE INSPECTORS.
Even at the time Secretary Rumsfeld was saying "We know they have them. We know where they are!" but the fact that he never sent the inspectors to the spots HE KNEW got short shrift by the media. The media was looking forward to the war because ALL CORPORATIONS come out of wars smelling like roses.

In summary, Saddam didn't "act like he had them" so much as we were led to interpret his actions as such. By our ever-helpful media!

cheers