"The head of the CIA agrees that Saddam will probably not attack the U.S. overtly with weapons of mass destruction. I don't think anyone has ever been concerned about Saddam mounting an attack on the U.S. flying the flag of Iraq. We've been concerned about him sneaking nasty crap to some fly-ridden psychos who will do the dirty work for him. Deterrence implies we can fix the blame, or that the instigator isn't nuts. I didn't notice Afghanistan and the Taliban worrying about our reaction to an attack on New York City, at least not enough to be "deterred.""

Yes, I am well aware of selective sourcing and quoting which is done by BOTH sides, which is why I ALWAYS give the whole thing or at least a URL to it. Those (facts contained in the) 'bullets' you mentioned don't bear out, as my other sources suggest.

as for covert attack with WMD, again, you have to prove intent and attempt before you have clear and present danger.

Deturrence depends on us being able to TERRIFY saddam with death or loss of power. I also submit that the ancestry of Chemical WMD is, in most cases, discernable and in many cases provable. IE, you can tell technique from composition from technique you can establish who has the capabilities and from that, trace the machinery and/or investigate.

Frankly, just make it so clear to saddam that he joins the fight agains international terrorism out of the terror of false accusation (don't respond, that is in jest)

Davin