[blockquote]In discussing Hussein's failure to use chemical weapons in the defense of Baghdad, officials said, the generals often rant sarcastically that Hussein's government did not even prepare land mines and other basic military defenses to block or slow the U.S. advance. Why, they ask, should chemical weapons be any different?

"There was no unity of command. There were five different armies being used, no cooperation or coordination," retired Maj. Gen. Abed Mutlaq Jubouri, 63, a former division commander later jailed by Hussein for conspiring against the regime, said in an interview with The Post. "As to the defense of Baghdad, there was no plan." [/blockquote]

I believed, at the beginning of 2003, that Iraq did indeed have chemical and biological weapons. I based my belief on Iraq's record in the '90s (when UNSCOM inspectors repeatedly found lots of evidence that Iraq had the stuff), and upon the presentation Powell made at the UN, with Negroponte and Tenet sitting behind him.

What many failed to appreciate, it seems, is Saddam's capacity for learning. Repeated inspections and bombings, etc. lead to a much more nuanced, much more concealable weapons program on Saddam's part.

I also now beleive that the current CIA needs to be scrapped. There are many fine individuals working there, but the organization as a whole needs to be totally restructured.