[Dr. Frank fan]

I can reject the concept of 'provisionally true' because I have no problem living with uncertainty.

Then you will have no problem acknowledging that the claims here are unopposed by any contrary evidence, even though they haven't been "proven". We simply have uncertainty about this topic and that is (or, should be) ok with you, it's not a reason to go off accusing this man of lying half-cocked with no evidence.

You caught me oversimplifying. I should have written "tactically significant stocks of WMDs".

I see but I don't know why you would have written that either. Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD, nor was that even the issue under consideration at that point of our exchange. To imply that Iraq needed to have "tactically significant stocks of" WMD before [something-or-other] is to move the goalposts; to imply that according to prewar claims [something-or-other] hinged on Iraq's possesion of T.S.S.O.WMD is a straw-man.

We do not know that there is a stockpile, we know that the accounting is inadequate to rule it out, and it would be unwise to trust Iraq on any such issues.

Glad we agree.

Our only significant disagreement is about whether one should disbelieve EC#2's claims. I don't, you do. But as long as you understand there's a difference between Not Disbelieving (=my position) and Believing (=not my position), we're indeed probably done here.

Best,

[Fred Fighter]

it's not a reason to go off accusing this man of lying half-cocked with no evidence.

As you know, I haven't accused him of lying, I've said I think he's lying. Not the same, at least not for those of us who use the phrase "I think" (as opposed say, to "I know for a fact") when one has doubt.

Nothing significant hinges on whether Iraq possessed "tactically significant stocks of" WMD

I disagree. Tactically significant stockpiles of WMds are a significant threat to neighboring countries and invading armies. Unexploded munitions left uncollected on a battlefield are not. While that was not the issue we started discussing, the nature of the WMDs in Iraq became important when you brought up the _fact_ that Iraq did have WMDs in 2003--aside from which it is an important issue by itself.

--

FF