Won't Jude Wanniski help?

Over time, the argument over whether to go to war with Iraq has shifted more and more into the realm of game theory. The first iteration, put forth by Iraq hawks, went something like this:

United States attacks Saddam, therefore Iraq loses its chemical and biological weapons and never gets nukes, thereforeIraq is no longer a problem.

Or

United States doesn't attack Saddam, therefore Saddam uses chemical and biological weapons and, once he has them, nukes, therefore many people, including perhaps many in the United States, die.

The second iteration, put forth by the (apparently dovish) Central Intelligence Agency, was this:

United States attacks Saddam, thereforeIraq hits back with chemical and biological weapons.

Or

United States doesn't attack Saddam, therefore Saddam doesn't attack the United States with chemical and biological weapons, in part because he doesn't want to admit he has them.

Now we have a third iteration put forth by Jude Wanniski, the supply-side-guru-turned- Iraq-genocide-denier and Saddamophile:

United States attacks Saddam, therefore Saddam doesn't hit back with chemical and biological weapons because he doesn't have them, thereforeIraq is no longer a problem.