Areyouforreal,

Thanks for the links. I quickly read through them...couple of comments:
- The first article: Interesting info about the Russians, if true. However, the article did NOT mention WMDs, just conventional explosives. So, my criticism of Roman still stands.

- Second and third articles: When David Kay went before Congress, he claimed that "we were all wrong" referring to Iraq's WMDs. However, he did say that Iraq was still in violation of several UN Resolutions especially those regarding conventional and ballistic missiles. And, to me, that is clear and not surprising. Afterall, Iraq's most hated enemy - one they had fought a very brutal war with - still sat on their eastern border.

- I found the second and third articles to be rather vague when discussing the WMDs, and, in some cases, less than truthful. Many of their statements said things like "may have been used" or "could have been used" or "could be used." Also, one of the article states the Kay found "uranium-enrichment centrifuges whose only plausible use was as part of a clandestine nuclear-weapons program." However, they leave out the fact that the equipment was old, in very bad condition, and had basically been abandoned 15 - 20 years before.

In short, the articles paint a picture that many conservatives want to believe and I think that was their intention. Now, I know, there are plenty of liberal articles that do just the opposite. Basically, there is a ton of information and disinformation out there. Iraq was an advanced nation and certainly had the means to start up chemical and biological (not nuclear) weapons programs rather quickly. But, I believe their programs had been defunked for several years. And I believe that the Bush Administration purposely over hyped the threat and used fear mongering tactics to get a war that they wanted.