Remember that this entire edice (the rationale for war) is built upon the wobbly pretext that possession of such-and-such, or possible intent to do so-and-so by the current or designated Bogey Man gives the United States - or, by chilling extension, any country - the right to go in and effect regime change, or mount pre-emptive strikes.

Remember too that at least a few of us are focused enough to reject this entire argument and expose it for what it is - carte blanche to anything we (the USA) damn well please for the most transparent, nay bogus reasons one can imagine, i.e. that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger.

If the possession of WMD as casus belli argument had any merit, then Iraq would not have been anywhere near the top of the list of countries in the Middle East deserving of regime change, for, as we are seeing, Iraq was entirely a paper tiger conceived entirely in the minds and disinformation of a power cartel hungry for her oil and geopolitical position in the latest phase of the so-called Great Game.

Meanwhile, which country in that region do you suppose possesses no less than 200 nuclear weapons, and probably a great deal more, along with who knows what else?

~

You wrote: "Do you think he would never have sold them to whatever group he thought could do the most damage?"

Here you may be on to the truth, but have the guilty party wrong. Recall from whom Saddam orginally got much of his "seed material" for the bio-chem nasties in the first place.

sp