Huh?

From MSNBC's coverage of tonights debate (I went there to see if I really heard that right):

"Bush acknowledged that he “wasn’t happy when we found there weren’t weapons” of mass destruction in Iraq."

So help me out here,,,, if the double negatives of "wasn't" and "weren't" cancel each other out, was Bush saying he would have been happy if Iraq had actually possessed WMD's?? What the hell kind of thing is that to wish for? Huh? Help me out here folks, is he saying it would have been nice for Iraq to have nukes, because then he would'nt look like a raving loopey-loo with delusions of granduer?

By the way, I plan to copyright "raving loopey-loo with delusions of granduer"... I like that almost as much as "brie eating surrender monkeys!"