Rational WMD analysis
The glaring absence of unconventional Iraqi arms should not blind us to the fact that even if Saddam Hussein had amassed chemical, biological, and -- yes -- even nuclear weapons, he would not have posed a threat to the American people. As offensive tools, those weapons would have been useless.
How could that be? Simply put, with the United States armed with the most sophisticated weapons imaginable -- including nuclear bombs -- it is unthinkable that the former Iraqi president would have embarked on the suicidal mission of attacking [our] nation.
From recent history (Libya, Iran) he already knew that to sponsor even a conventional terrorist attack on Americans would bring deadly retaliation.
It should be kept in mind that until recently chemical and biological weapons have not been regarded as weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). This is a category deliberately broadened for rhetorical purposes -- to spook the American people into supporting an offensive war against a government that did not attack them or, indeed, even show signs of wanting to.
The power to define is the power to control. Some of the most lethal weapons on earth are held by the U.S. government but are not classified as weapons of mass destruction. Yet if even one vial of old anthrax is found buried deep in the ground in Iraq, it will be proclaimed as proof that Hussein had an arsenal capable of killing multitudes. This would be propaganda, not rational analysis.