"I'm sorry that they didn't have enough WMDs for you, or that they were not actually loaded onto missiles and targeted directly at U.S. cities so as to "count" as WMDs, or that Saddam didn't leave them sitting around in big boxes labeled "WMDs for Killing the Great Satan" in the same places where the administration publicly announced they were while we took 14 months to ask everybody and their mother if we could, pretty please, invade Iraq."
Wow. A little defensive, aren't we? Especially since I didn't say any of the things you attribute to me, so you apparently just felt the need to make them up.
But, since you are on such an unsupported rant, let me address a couple of your points:
Your post that I responded to was about 'mistaken intelligence' and what you perceived to be an effort by the MSM to neglect certain 'intelligence.' You used the al-Tuwaitha material as your example.
The al-Tuwaitha material has nothing to do with 'intelligence', mistaken or otherwise. We didn't need intel to know what was at al-Tuwaitha. We already knew. IAEA already knew. Iraq acknowledged what was there in its disclosures. So your point about the information being 'neglected' is just utterly and completely wrong.
Second, you are being remarkably loose with your language, and I suspect intentionally. Since you are talking about 'WMD' you might want to stop for just a moment and consider what those letters stand for. Yellowcake uranium is not a weapon. Precursor chemicals are not weapons. Parts of centrifuges in flowerpots are not weapons. There is no doubt that Hussein tried to avoid completely dismantling his programs. But he didn't have stockpiles. He didn't even have operational programs. He had some ability to restart operational programs at some point in the future. That's our own government's conclusion.
But, I guess you know a lot more about it than ISG does. At least, that's what you'd have us believe.
Excuse me for my unsupported rant; it was born of frustration with what I feel is misinformation by the MSM in general about Iraq. I did not intend to attribute any of my rantings as replies to specific statements by you, or to imply that I know more than the ISG. I didn't "make up" any of what I said, as I have heard those things from people who try to argue the "No WMD" line.
I agree with many of your points, and I wish I had read your second post before I replied. I am not as much defensive as I am aggravated. I concede that some of what I said is based on assumption and not proven fact (i.e., Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, etc.)
You are correct that the 500 tons of uranium is not evidence to support a perceived effort by the MSM to neglect certain intelligence regarding WMDs.
My reference to "mistaken WMD intelligence presented to the public by the MSM" was not an assertion that all of the military intelligence on WMDs presented by the administration was correct and proven fact -- I readily admit that there was mistaken WMD intelligence presented by the administration.
My original post was meant to convey my perception that the MSM's "intelligence" on WMDs is mistaken. Clearly, I did not make that point obvious enough.
The consistent drumbeat that I seem to hear from the MSM is that there were no WMDs in Iraq whatsoever, except maybe half a cannister of 20-year-old nerve gas, and that Bush lied, people died, etc. I do not believe this to be true.
I was trying to communicate that, while the MSM would have us believe that there were no WMDs at all, I believe there were actual WMDs in Iraq. The 500 tons of yellowcake uranium was cited to support that belief.
I accept your assertion that precursors are not weapons, but I deny that it was my intention to be "loose" with my language.
In fact, I think that, when it comes to 500 tons of uranium (at least 1 ton of which was apparently low-grade enriched) the difference between "precursor" and "weapon" is about as "loose" as what the definition of "is" is.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point.