I missed that one. I wish I could have seen it! I'm always curious why the question even exists at all as to whether or not Iraq had/has WMD. Afterall, it was in 1998 that it was determined that Iraq indeed did posess WMD and later on came the 15-0 vote that Iraq did not meet the UN requirements for proving the WMD were disposed of adequately. There was no question then whether or not WMD existed. The question came later when the inspectors could no longer find them as to where did they go? If Saddam did dispose of his WMD and not hide or move them, then why not prove to the UN that he did so? Afterall, he could have avoided losing power in Iraq entirely had he done so. Where are they now? They certainly are somewhere (hidden, underground, in Syria, who knows) and the threat still existed in my personal opinion.

>I saw something funny on the news last night. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was asked about the WMD not having been found yet, and if that indicated that there never were any WMDs. He responded by saying that Saddam Hussein had not been found yet either, and he was pretty sure Hussein was there before the war started :-).
>
>>At the risk of starting a heated discussion, I felt this article from today's issue of the New York Times was worth perusing..
>>
>>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/opinion/04FRIE.html
>>
>>Here is an excerpt:
>>
>>
>>Because We Could
>>By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
>>
>>
>>he failure of the Bush team to produce any weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.'s) in Iraq is becoming a big, big story. But is it the real story we should be concerned with? No. It was the wrong issue before the war, and it's the wrong issue now.
>>
>>Why? Because there were actually four reasons for this war: the real reason, the right reason, the moral reason and the stated reason.
>>
>>The "real reason" for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world. Afghanistan wasn't enough because a terrorism bubble had built up over there — a bubble that posed a real threat to the open societies of the West and needed to be punctured. This terrorism bubble said that plowing airplanes into the World Trade Center was O.K., having Muslim preachers say it was O.K. was O.K., having state-run newspapers call people who did such things "martyrs" was O.K. and allowing Muslim charities to raise money for such "martyrs" was O.K. Not only was all this seen as O.K., there was a feeling among radical Muslims that suicide bombing would level the balance of power between the Arab world and the West, because we had gone soft and their activists were ready to die.
>>
>>The only way to puncture that bubble was for American soldiers, men and women, to go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by this terrorism bubble. Smashing Saudi Arabia or Syria would have been fine. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government — and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen — got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
>>
>>The "right reason" for this war was the need to partner with Iraqis, post-Saddam, ...
>>
>>
>>