My turn to make the case against the Iraq-hawks like Daniel Pipes. He claims there are holes in Scrowcroft's argument but it is Pipes' argument that has holes. Pipes contends that if Saddam merely possesses WMD he will use them. But he makes no case for the validity of that statement. Lots of bluster but no plausible scenario is presented. On the other hand there are plenty of incentives for Saddam not to use them. The most important of which in that any aggressive strike by him guarantees his downfall. He will have no friends. If he strikes Israel he gets to swallow their nukes. If he strikes anywhere else we will have the "Make my day" justification we need to take him out. He cannot use them without suffering a fatal counter-strike. It would be nice if more of Saddam's fingerprints were on 9/11 but they are not. If that strike had used WMD then Saddam would have been implicated and he would be hiding with the Taliban. But if the opportunity had ever presented itself to him he was smart enough to know that the trail would lead back to him and he declined the option. With Al-Qaida essentially gone the trail back to him would be even stronger. So even if he already has the weapons, using them would be suicidal and that Saddam is not.