The press is getting antsy about the failure to locate WMD in Iraq.
The Administration, feeling the heat, has come up with various logical "arguments" to support their going-in position that Saddam's WMD posed an immediate threat to the security of the U.S. and other countries.
The more off-the-cuff sound byte oft-repeated in the last few days is "We haven't found Saddam either and no one's saying there never was a Saddam".

The more serious argument, though, includes the logic that 'why on earth would Saddam kick out inspectors and suffer the extreme penalties of the embargo and let the accusations persist if he didn't have them???'.
Some answers to that that cross my mind are:
1) He's crazy and crazy people will do anything. or...
2) He said many times that he no longer possessed WMDs and even let the inspectors back in but nobody wanted to believe him. or...
3) He was happy to let the U.S. *think* he continued to have WMDs because that might inhibit them from attacking.
Who will ever know?!?!

But the situation does bring up the following question in my mind...

If President Bush and Prime Minister Blair and several others truly believed that Saddam DID still have WMDs, then WHY WERE TROOPS SENT IN WHEN THEY WERE?
Weren't the troops all being put at extra risk for no real good reason?...
With the inspectors doing their thing the "coalition of the willing" would at least be able to chart areas that were (relatively) assured to be free of WMDs.
With the inspectors doing their thing the coalition had the (continued) opportunity to further emasculate the Iraqi forces and reduce their weapons arsenal before attacking.

In the "certainty" that Saddam had WMDs was it really the correct thing to do, to send in the troops when they did?
I'd say that it was a careless act endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of troops myself if they REALLY thought that there were WMDs at play.