No, I don't need an actual attack. Just some evidence that the Iraqis have some intent and the deployed capability to mount a chemical attack. Empty rocket warheads dumped in the back of an abandoned dump don't count. Chem agents in a laboratory don't count. Iraqi troops with gas masks don't count. Of course I believe that Iraq is more likely to use WMD than we are, but there isn't actually any evidence. That suspicion is a good reason for us to be prepared and to be very careful, and it may be a very good reason for us to redouble our efforts to find Iraqi WMD. but it isn't proof that we were right all along about their WMD.
Your characterisation of the French and analysis of the Fall of France would be offensive if it were not so silly. They weren't defeated because the Wehrmacht's attack came as a huge surprise, they were defeated because they made mistakes, and because they were not equipped or prepared to halt Hitler's blitzkrieg.