> And this angle that "those in the know" knew he was armless, thus they
> attacked, is being used by parts of the pro-war crowd. Again, as I said
> earlier, Saddam had plenty of weapons in 1990-91, and the US still
> attacked
> him. It simply came down to a severe imbalance of power. Saddam wasn't
> crazy
> enough to use chemical weapons on US troops when he knew all the US
> wanted
> was to kick him out of Kuwait. Why risk his power at home? The US knew
> this
> too, which is why (among other reasons) they attacked.
There was a piece in the _Washington Post_ last week that reported that, during the first Gulf War, Saddam was told that if he used chemical weapons on Americans, the U.S.'d not only take back Kuwait, but had on to Bahgdad. As a result, he didn't use'em, and the U.S. didn't take Saddam out. I don't recall the author, but he was a UN official on weapons inspections, or somesuch.