>>>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.

I think you should again reread what I have written. I did not write that Frontline claimed Iraq had WMDs. What Frontline claimed were missles, which are not classified as WMDs (nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons). And it was David Kay, in an interview with Frontline, who pointed out the facts about the missles:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wmd/interviews/kay.html

>>>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.

No WMDs have been found. Whether there were WMDs is still unknown, although I am increasing skeptical. However, your argument seems to be that even though Saddam defied the U.N. for 12 years, we should have ignored it. I completely disagree. All Saddam had to do was comply with U.N. Resolution 1441. He chose not to.

>>>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".

You are being a little fast and loose with your cutting and quoting. Here is what we wrote:

You: I'm amazed to hear you say that possession of WMD was never actually claimed. Rather than quoting the references picked for you by apologists, just look up the various speeches and read them! here, let me help:

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

I have never written that possession of WMDs was never claimed by the administration. So, to make it perfectly clear, your assertion that I wrote that the administration never claimed possession of WMDs is completely false. I never did write anything like that.

I did write that the administration never claimed Iraq was an imminent threat. There have been various people and the NY Times who claimed this. To the best of my knowledge, the administration never said this. If you have a quote you would like to provide, I am all eyes.

>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.

I wasn't trying to achieve anything other than mentioning to others the Frontline program. You asked what I had learned. I have responded.