So what's the difference whether Saddam had real weapons of mass destruction or only daydreams of  restarting his weapons of mass destruction related program activities?

"So what’s the difference?" a slightly flustered George W. Bush asked Diane Sawyer on Dec. 16, 2003 when she challenged him on whether Saddam Hussein actually had weapons of mass destruction, or just wanted to get his hands on some:

DIANE SAWYER:   But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   So what's the difference?
(complete exchange below)

Can you tell the difference?

Examples of real WMD - hover on picture, or click for even more info

Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper

The Weapons That Weren’t
Saddam’s thought crimes finally come to light.

So What's the Difference?

Is the search for weapons over?

more links below

Complete WMD exchange from page 2 of Diane Sawyer's Dec. 16, 2003 interview with Bush on ABC

WMD Intelligence

DIANE SAWYER:   Fifty percent of the American people have said that they think the administration exaggerated the evidence going into the war with Iraq, weapons of mass destruction, connection to terrorism. Are the American people wrong? Misguided?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   The intelligence I operated one was good sound intelligence, the same intelligence that my predecessor operated on. The — there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a threat. The — otherwise the United Nations might — wouldn't a passed, you know, resolution after resolution after resolution, demanding that he disarm. ... I first went to the United Nations, September the 12th, 2002, and said you've given this man resolution after resolution after resolution. He's ignoring them. You step up and see that he honor those resolutions. Otherwise you become a feckless debating society. ... And so for the sake of peace and for the sake of freedom of the Iraqi people, for the sake of security of the country, and for the sake of the credibility of institu — in — international institutions, a group of us moved, and the world is better for it.

DIANE SAWYER:   But let me try to ask — this could be a long question. ... ... When you take a look back, Vice President Cheney said there is no doubt, Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, not programs, not intent. There is no doubt he has weapons of mass destruction. Secretary Powell said 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons and now the inspectors say that there's no evidence of these weapons existing right now. The yellow cake in Niger, in Niger. George Tenet has said that shouldn't have been in your speech. Secretary Powell talked about mobile labs. Again, the intelligence — the inspectors have said they can't confirm this, they can't corroborate.

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Yet.

DIANE SAWYER:   — an active —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Yet.

DIANE SAWYER:   Is it yet?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   But what David Kay did discover was they had a weapons program, and had that, that — let me finish for a second. Now it's more extensive than, than missiles. Had that knowledge been examined by the United Nations or had David Kay's report been placed in front of the United Nations, he, he, Saddam Hussein, would have been in material breach of 1441, which meant it was a causis belli. And look, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein was a dangerous person, and there's no doubt we had a body of evidence proving that, and there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.

DIANE SAWYER:   Again, I'm just trying to ask, these are supporters, people who believed in the war who have asked the question.

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Well, you can keep asking the question and my answer's gonna be the same. Saddam was a danger and the world is better off cause we got rid of him.

DIANE SAWYER:   But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   So what's the difference?

DIANE SAWYER:   Well —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   The possibility that he could acquire weapons. If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's, that's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be de — dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger. And so we got rid of him and there's no doubt the world is a safer, freer place as a result of Saddam being gone.

DIANE SAWYER:   But, but, again, some, some of the critics have said this combined with the failure to establish proof of, of elaborate terrorism contacts, has indicated that there's just not precision, at best, and misleading, at worst.

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Yeah. Look — what — what we based our evidence on was a very sound National Intelligence Estimate. ...

DIANE SAWYER:   Nothing should have been more precise?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   What — I, I — I made my decision based upon enough intelligence to tell me that this country was threatened with Saddam Hussein in power.

DIANE SAWYER:   What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER:   And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] —

PRESIDENT BUSH:   Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you — I made the right decision for America —

DIANE SAWYER:   But-

PRESIDENT BUSH:   — because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.

The Weapons That Weren’t
Saddam’s thought crimes finally come to light

So What's the Difference?

What's the Difference?

Head of Iraqi Arms Search May Be Ready to Step Down  [NY Times:  But Mr. Bush said in an interview on Tuesday with ABC News that what was known about Mr. Hussein's weapons programs was enough to justify the war, and he seemed to play down the distinction between actual weapons and weapons programs. "So what's the difference?" he responded when pressed on the topic during the interview.]

Is the search for weapons over?

Soft News

U.S. tests massive bomb: Designed for use in 'psychological operations'

Mother of all bombs just a huge scare device