MORE ON (LACK OF) WMD'S

The about-to-graduate Jesse seems to have come up with a pretty reasonable theory about WMD in Iraq:

I would like to point out now the Pandagon Patented Rationale For The Illusion of WMD, which was that Saddam had no real military power in the region, and kept up the veneer of having WMD to maintain a commensurate level of fear and respect both from his people and his region. From everything I've seen in post-war Iraq, this makes more sense than virtually any explanation, especially given how thorough the absence of WMD is.

What we have, then, is a combination of circumstances, both Iraqi and American, which created a critical mass leading to the invasion of Iraq. Saddam put up a masquerade overstating the possibility of his posession WMD, to show an outward face of military power, and to use as a deterrent for the countries around him. Still, if this is all the case, then he played a fast and loose game, assuming "if we actually don't have them, the US isn't going to insist, using forged/etc evidence, that we have oodles of them, are they?" Obviously, he thought the other Bush was in the White House. Thus, he's out of power.

He's out of power because America capitalized on his assertion (mostly for a regional audience) by trumpeting for all to hear that Saddam has WMD, almost has WMD, has nukes, could have nukes, is a month away from having a nuke, etc. We told the UN Security Council that we couldn't wait thirty days! The end result is that we called a bluff that we knew was a bluff (remember, this war was supposed to be part of the "war on terrah", directly pertinent to national/homeland security), and we lied to get to that point. Neither side's lie excuses that of the other side.