Okay, news for all of you that are making a big deal about Saddam's desire to have WMD's - All world leaders want them. It's simply a matter of priorities. I really wish we'd remove the poison gas that Saddam dumped on Iran and the Kurds from the definition of WMD's. Yes, they can kill a bunch of people but most of today's conventional weapons can do as much or more damage. Imagine a MOAB detonated over a large metropolitan area. I think it's a major step in reason to decide that because Saddam used gas, that he'd be willing to risk nuclear retaliation for a nuclear attack originated in Iraq.

I still say that a strong enough ultimatum of a huge nuclear retaliation against any country unleashing chemical, biological or nuclear terrorism on any part of the free world is the best we can hope for. Certainly covert actions against the major threats have great potential to limit them but I'm afraid the genie is out of the bottle. I hate that this is the world we now live in but the sooner we accept the new reality, the more prepared we are to counter it. Saddam was small potatoes in the big picture. Hell, at the peak of his power, the best he could do was go in and rape the tiny nation of Kuwait and he got his ass handed to him over that.

Maybe the WMD should stand for Weapons of Mass Distraction.