Patrick Carver over at Southern Appeal has a good question:
If the Administration was really lying about Saddam’s possession of
such weapons, why didn’t the Bushies plant the evidence? Why wasn’t it
arranged to have, say, the 101st "find" a cache of chemical weapons
somewhere in the desert?
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Maybe because George Bush isn’t a liar.
And the 101st aren’t liars.
I wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Saddam had chemical weapons, and they were conveniently smuggled across the border before the U.S. invasion. We certainly gave him enough time to do so.
I don’t think the Administration was wilfully lying; I think they believed Hussein (btw, why do you gentlemen call him “Saddam”? Do you know him well?) had WMDs and “cooked” the intelligence to prove it. Of course they did conveniently ignore the evidence that the WMDs were destroyed (the testimony of Gen. Hussein Kamal and the reports from the weapons inspectors).