You are reinventing history.

The Bush "case" for war was entirely dependent upon his claim that Iraq still possessed and was still manufacturing hundreds of tons of chemical and biologicial weapons that could fall into the hands of terrorists. He claimed that Iraq was only months away from making nuclear weapons. Neither of these things proved to be true.

Nobody disputes the fact that Saddam had stockpiles of chemical weapons before the first Gulf War. But the first Gulf War (which I vigorously supported) and the subsequent sanctions and inspections (which I also vigorously supported) essentially eliminated these stockpiles.

And that we still might find a smattering of decades old artillery shells with remnants of chemical agents in them from the pre-Gulf War era shouldn't surprise anyone either. But the fact is these old artillery shells are too obsolete to represent much of a threat.

That you attempt to convert these archaic vestiges of Saddam's infamous legacy into the "hundreds of tons" Mr. Bush was talking about only exposes your own duplicity and dishonesty.