Forums dot lukpac.org

When an interviewer for ABC television, Diane Sawyer, reminded him of claims of the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction, as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons", Mr Bush asked: "What's the difference?"

He added: "If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger."

Asked what it would take to convince him that Saddam did not have weapons of mass destruction, the president said: "Saddam Hussein was a threat. The fact that he is gone means America is a safer country."

"It's unbelievable to me," David Albright, another former UN inspector and a Washington expert on nuclear arms.

"He can't possibly have meant it. Because it means we can hit you if we don't like you.

"The administration is redefining its meaning of having stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction to thinking about acquiring large stockpiles. His claims that there is no difference is disingenuous. But they're sticking with that position - that black is white."