Chris

>>And in fact, we did find after the war that Iraq was trying to build missles that were beyond the range they were allowed etc etc

Kay has clearly stated that his search found no WMD or evidence that they were being built. But if Frontline says different, I'm sure they know more than the man who was actually in charge of searching.

>>All of this was happening before the war, with U.N. inspectors in the country, and coalition troops massing at the border. How can you possibly say that Iraq's behavoir would have changed?

Chris, there were no WMD! There was no behavior that needed an immediate attack! Sure Iraq defied the UN, insisting it had no WMD when "everybody knew better", but they aren't the first and they won't be the last to act defiant. As it is, removing a tyrant is something for which the US deserves full credit, and you would be amazed at the credit received if only people stopped trying to fudge about the WMD. I spend a lot of time in various places and I can tell you that people *want* to be supportive, but they get switched off by spurious arguments trying to deny that the immediate attack was a bit of a whoopsie.

>>You need to go back and reread what I have written, because I never wrote anything like that.

How about "To the best of my knowledge, the Bush administration never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat." Well, check out the quotes. And let's not forget Rice's "We don't want the smoking gun to become a mushroom cloud".

What are you trying to achieve, Chris? So the intelligence people fouled up. As Kay himself said, those people owe an explanation to President Bush rather than President Bush to the American people. To learn from it, you have to admit it. If the only "justification" is that the Security Council (7 people, including a permanent member from the USA) screwed up a couple of times before, it's hopeless.