> My point was not that we knew he didn't have them when
> he didn't use them, but we knew he didn't have them,
> and we knew that the US govt knew, when it decided to
> attack him. The argument _does_ hold up, because see
> the difference in the treatment of N. Korea, ruled by
> a similarly minimally rational dictator, but whom the
> US fears would use the nukes we know it has if we
> attacked them. jks
Let's assume, for the moment, that Bush and Co. knew, for certain, that the WMDs just weren't there. And they pressed on with the invasion knowing it was a lie. So why didn't they make an effort to make sure that such WMDs would be found? Wouldn't they have had some nice props ready to be waved about at the right moment? Why do _they_ seem utterly poleaxed-and-rake- whacked over the fact that no weapons have turned up?
That's why I'm considering another possibility-- that although the intelligence agencies were telling Bush and cronies that Saddam just didn't have WMDs, they just _wouldn't believe it_. We're talking about people who a) were about as _realpolitik_ as Republicans get, and thus unlikely to believe that Saddam would disarm, b) more than willing to believe that Saddam was supporting Al Qaeda, c) probably enticed by the mountains of profits to be made once Aemrcian troops secured the oil wells, and d) looking forward to being portrayed as liberators of a major Middle East nation.
Heck, if I had those prospects dancing in front of my eyes, I'd have a hard time believing the Langley analyst briefing me that Saddam ain't got squat.