I fully believe he has sleeper agents with bio weapons within our borders.
It is difficult to conceive of such a weapon, but one scenario might be:
1. To demonstrate by some means that he has chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
2. To announce that those weapons have been deployed in some American cities.
3. To announce that they will be used if the U.S. commences a war but not otherwise.
The above, and not diplomacy, is the most likely scenario we shall face in the coming weeks. All of Saddam's energies in the past 8 years must have been devoted to precisely this end. All of the UN Inspections have been devoted to preventing precisely this outcome. The entire premise of President Bush's decision to attack Iraq is that the scenario described above is imminent, if not actual.
Will a failed Iraqui diplomacy be supplanted by Iraqui deterrence? No, because of September 11. The events of September and the succeeding anthrax attacks showed that
American deterrence has failed. Saddam dares attack, despite our nuclear weapons. It is axiomatic that when deterrence fails, it fails symmetrically; that is, in both directions.
Weapons of mass destruction possess a deterrent effect, paradoxically,
when there is a chance that they will not be used. Saddam's behavior, his consorting with Al-Qaeda, the lack of a stable command and control in Baghdad, the certain loss of these weapons to terrorists when Saddam, who is mortal, finally dies, means that the Iraqui devices have been
virtually fired. Good as gone, without a regime chance. Good as gone, in flight toward us, unless we seize them.
The world has lived under stable deterrence for so long that we have forgotten what a world witout deterrence looks like. It is a world which an American general, never having known it, understood intuitively. It is a world under which there is no substitute for victory.