In a related story;
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110428,00.html

From the news story

In a prepared statement, Rumsfeld said he was confident that prewar intelligence, while possibly flawed in some respects, was not manipulated by the administration to justify its war aims.

And

Rumsfeld offered several examples of what he called "alternative views" about why no weapons have been discovered in Iraq, starting with the possibility that banned arms never existed.

"I suppose that's possible, but not likely," he said.

Other possibilities cited by Rumsfeld:

— Weapons may have been transferred to a third country before U.S. troops arrived in March.

— Weapons may have been dispersed throughout Iraq and hidden.

— Weapons existed but were destroyed by the Iraqis before the war started.

Or, Rumsfeld postulated, "small quantities" of chemical or biological agents may have existed, along with a "surge capability" that would allow Iraq to rapidly build an arsenal of banned weapons. Commenting on that possibility, Rumsfeld said, "We may eventually find it in the months ahead."

Lastly, he offered the possibility that the issue of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction "may have been a charade" orchestrated by the Iraqi government. It is even possible, he said, that Saddam was "tricked" by his own people into believing he had banned weapons that did not exist.

(See that one Tom)
If I was one of Saddam’s scientist, and he told me I better have some WMD results by the end of the year or I would be painfully executed, I would be showing him some kind of results.