Tophat665

I stand corrected, but the point I was making reamins, if (and I don't grant this yet) this story holds up, the argument that there are no WMDs in Iraq will be less effective. That there will be no WMDs in Iraq to speak of will still be true; That there are no reliably effective WMDs in Iraq will be true; qualified arguments like that carry less weight than a flat denial, at least as far as the electorate goes.

See, when we find any amount of WMDs at all, useful or not, declared or not, the Administration can very easily make the argument that some part of the intelligence they used was a misappraisal of those WMDs. It puts the blame squarely on the intelligence service and deflects blame away from the Administration unless it is skillfully counterspun.

But I do apologize for missing your earlier post. I was juggling a half dozen things at the time I was reading this.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.