> As I said. But the thread wasn't about an Iraqi "threat" to our very
> existence, but whether or not he had weapons.
The distinction is jesuitical. War opponents said the evidence was that he had too few weapons to be a serious threat. This was true. If it turns out he had no weapons at all, it makes it more true, not less.
> Saddam had plenty of weapons in 1990-91, and the US still attacked him.
It attacked Kuwait, but famously stopped short of advancing on Baghdad. His possession of chemical weapons might have been part of the reason.
Michael