>After awhile people forget who said what and cling on to a word, phrase or concept to “prove his/her point”. People are accused of saying things they did not.
>
>I have to agree that I have not read anything from you about WMD's not being claimed by the administration. It seemed to me that your previous statements (some months ago) expressed disenchantment with the statement and justification the administration gave about WMD’s and the findings as of that time.
>
>I recall when it was mentioned that after many months of looking for WMD's with negative results you expressed (my term) disappointment in what the administration had been saying on this topic.

I think what I wrote some months ago was that I was going to be extremely disappointed in the administration if WMDs were not found. They practically guaranteed they would be found. I am becoming increasing skeptical.

>Several news cable stations last night had people expressing concern that:
>
>1. The intelligence service (CIA) misinformed the administration about WMD’s.
>a. It was suggested there should be a shakeup within the CIA.
>
>2. The Administration interpreted the information from the CIA as it saw fit to support its case to attack Iraq.
>
>3. President Bush had not (as of the time I saw the interviews) clarified that there was a problem with the WMD justification and why?
>
>a. It was suggested that the American people are very forgiving but do like to be informed. Silence on this topic leads to many questions and conclusions.
>
>4. Shortly after the interviews the President spoke. He stated he had confidence in the CIA and they were doing a good job.
>
>
>This leads me to conclude that the Administration interpreted the information from the CIA to justify its case against Iraq.

I have a different guess. What may have happened is that the intelligence services said their was a high probability that Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs and an active program to develop more. I don't think that is an unreasonable assessment by the intelligence agencies given Iraq's history based on the following:

1. We do know that they did have stockpiles of WMDs after the Gulf War.
2. Iraq claimed they destroyed them, although as Hans Blix pointed out, for a country that was fairly good at documenting things, Iraq could not provide him with any documentation or any other kind of proof.
3. Iraq's history with the U.N. inspectors certainly made it lookto everyone like they were hiding something.

When I look at those 3 things, as well as other things in Saddam's history (past use of chemical weapons, brutally attacking 2 of his neighbors, etc.), I would have to say there was a high probability that Iraq still possessed the stockpiles of WMDs and had an active program going.

The thing that is making me increasing skeptical is that rather than saying there was a high probability, which again I think is pretty reasonable, the administration made it sound like it was a certainty, and that WMDs would be found. Here is where I suspect they may have fudged a little.

Someone else pointed out that the view that Iraq had WMDs wasn't just a view held by the Bush administration, but also by the Clinton administration.