Basic Logic, Mr. Bush---perhaps you've heard of it?

[kurtyboy]

I assert that if one has the INTENT to act and the CAPABILITY to act, one WILL necessarily act. This is my premise, and I doubt anyone can present a decent objection. If this is granted in the case of, say, Saddam developing WMDs, then we only need to determine if both conjucts of the antecedent are present (Intent and capability are both true). Bush says they are...

<snip>
I will remind them that there has been some failures -- listen, we thought there was going to be stockpiles of weapons. I thought so; the Congress thought so; the U.N. thought so. I'll tell you what we do know. Saddam Hussein had the capacity to make weapons. See, he had the ability to make them. He had the intent. We knew he hated America. We knew he was paying families of suiciders. We knew he tortured his own people, and we knew he had the capability of making weapons. That we do know. They haven't found the stockpiles, but we do know he could make them. And so he was a dangerous man. He was a dangerous man. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power. America is safer.
</snip>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/07/20040709-7.html

This is the cornerstone of Bush's apology--Saddam had both capability and intent to produce weapons. Yet he did notproduce them---or at least we cannot find them, and now the intel is being questioned by congress (Why does it take them twelve months to figure what we knew immediately?)

So, which is it? Either my original premise is wrong, or Saddam did not have intent to produce WMDs, or he did not have the capability. Which of these is not true? Because if its not my premise, the need to go to war was overstated in a way that needs international criminal justice....

Mr. Bush, I'm waiting for your answer....which premise is wrong?