This young man thinks so. Of course, here's the key question:

Glazov: So if all this evidence is credible, why wouldn't the Bush Administration take advantage of this information?

Mauro: There are multiple ideas out there. I tend to believe that the foreign policy implications of these revelations explain the Administration’s silence. The politicians don’t want to feel obliged to take strong action against Syria, and certainly don’t want to offend Russia. On several issues, Russian cooperation is a great asset if it can be achieved. There’s a debate as to whether Russia ever really helps us. Every country we seem to have problems with has close ties to Russia. It’s likely part of their strategic plan to counter American dominance. Yes, they’re pressuring Iran through negotiations, but Russia is closely tied to the Iranian regime, so one must ask in light of these revelations, is Russia simply “cooperating” as part of a game to buy time for her allies? Or does Russia genuinely want Iran to end its nuclear program?

I wonder if, at this point, they're counting on the MSM to continue to ignore the story (as they so far have been), and are waiting to roll it out in the summer or fall, just in time for the elections. In any event, it all seems pretty plausible to me. Saddam sure acted like a man who had WMD.

Of course, he might just have been deluded by underlinings who were terified he'd have them killed if they told him anything resembling the truth.

Or, he might have believed that if he kept up the pressure things would not have come to a head.

Or.

There are so many alternatives that Ockam's Razor suggests are more likely. Unless you have a pressing reason to try to justify this little adventure on anything other than humanitarian grounds.

Occam's Razor is a tools for speculation among multiple scenario's. When the shovel hit's you in the face, there's no more need to wonder if it was anything else.

The question was never, did he have WMDs. The question has always been, how has he or did he dispose of them? (Regardless of what the actual inventory levels might have been.) Considering his close ties with Syria, even without the abundance of clues we have (and most listed in this article are old news) Occam's Razor points straight at a prominent Syrian involment. As well, Russian involvement is old news.

Khrushchev acted like a man who had a big bomber fleet. Having a tight border helps a dictator keep control.

The MSM isn't going to come within a 100 Mega-ton blast zone of this story. They've been screaming at every chance that the WMDs never existed except in Mr Bush's deluded world.

If they now start asking why he isn't talking to Syria about his delusion their entire act goes south. Most of them would rather see their kids dead od anthrax than back down from Bush bashing IMHO.

I guess this means all those who screamed that Bush lied are in fact liars themsleves by their own definition. Remember, by that definition, being mistaken is still lying.

Oh, to be hoisted on a pitard of ones own making.

Boy, I'm glad the wheezing old Berkeley leftist David Horowitz finally solved this mystery.

I think there's an eigth grader in Mobile, Alabama who has an even more credible theory about the WMD. You folks need tin foil hats.

You folks need to triple the thickness of your tinfoil hats to stop those Haliburton mind control rays.

The left has thrown so much into this whole 'Bush Lied" thing that when the WMD's finally turn up, it will do overwhelming damage to their cause.

My superiorly engineered skull makes me impervious to mind control rays.