[70Chip]

I think a strong case could be made that if we had not deposed Saddam in 2003, the Iranians may have eventually called his chemical weapons bluff and the Clerics in Tehran would today be the world's largest oil producer. It seems clear now that he was not forthcoming with the inspectors so as to make his position seem stronger than it was or to at least create confusion in the minds of his enemies. Bush should have asked the CIA to make the case that Saddam didn't have WMDs. That evidence would have been even flimsier than the evidence on the other side and it would have made the situation more clear to the world. The problem wasn't merely the possibility that Saddam had WMDs but that no one seemed able to say for certain one way or the other. He behaved as though he had them. Everybody can poke holes in the case for WMDs in hindsight, but I don't remember anyone boldly proclaiming at the time that Saddam was clean. Nobody in any intelligence agency anywhere ever made that case so far as I know. There were people who oppossed the war, but they did so in spite of the strong possibility that WMDs were there.