I'd like to know if the following makes sense

[Harry Hayfield]

Saddam Hussein has been formerly convicted of crimes against humanity and under Iraqi law, this is a capital offence. Reaction from the White House suggests that President Bush is pleased with this sentence.

Therefore, is this the ultimate proof that Saddam Hussein never had weapons of mass destruction in the first place?

(My thinking is that, yes, it does prove as the White House would try and phrase it in such a way that they wanted to question him while they had the chance)

[Gabu]

I'm not sure if I understand how one follows from the other.

[Harry Hayfield]

I'm not sure if I understand how one follows from the other.

What I am suggesting is that if President Bush was 100% convinced that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, he would much rather Saddam was jailed rather than executed so that he could have him questioned about the locations of the WMD's that they have so far failed to find. The fact that President Bush (or the White House rather) made a statement welcoming the sentence makes me think that President Bush is admitting there are no WMD's

[Gabu]

If Saddam did have WMDs and hadn't talked yet, I don't think he'd be likely to ever talk.  I don't see such an ulterior motive here, myself.

[KEmperor]

I don't get it.