What do I have to retract on those? Regarding Iraq, my argument always has been simply that we had the authority based upon the UNSCRs to enforce the terms of the cease-fire and subsequent relevant resolutions, and that it is a known fact that Saddam was in violation of those terms (at a minimum the shooting at our planes and the opposition to inspections qualify for that). My argument was always relating to whether the war was legally justified or not, and based only upon the UNSCRs. I did not base the argument on WMDs, except to note that Saddam had not provided a full accounting* (perhaps you are thinking of my brother), I haven't really ever talked about Chilabi (I don't know all that much about him as he was never central to my arguments, but Mr44 and Ender_Sai have talked about him a bit), and the most I have said on Iraq terror links is that Iraq did have some connections with al Quaeda (which is verified, see 9/11 report), but I never claimed that they were involved in 9/11 or similar actions (perhaps again you are thinking of my brother). So, from the arguments that I actually made, what do I have to retract? What in any of those positions is false or inaccurate? The closest you could come to that would be to claim that my arguments for the justification of the Iraq war differ from your interpretation of the UNSCRs. Of course, feel free to post any statements of mine that contradict what I just said, and I will gladly retract those that are demonstratably false. Links, dates and time would be appreciated in that case. As for not correcting others like my brother, on some things, I mostly remain silent for a variety of reasons. First, there are already more than enough people willing to jump in, and I have never been one to dog pile in a debate. Second, from past experience in doing that (in other settings), I've had quite a few people use that sort of behavior to accuse me of "flip flopping" or similar things before. However, you can ask my brother, and he'll confirm that I have corrected him, both publicly and in private, in areas where he was stretching beyond the evidence he was basing his position on. Finally, that last bit is my threshold for correcting someone. I really don't care what you argue, as long as you can back it up with the appropriate sources. I know my brother and his arguments well enough that I know when he's making a claim based on evidence (the interpretation of which you might disagree with), and when he's talking out of his rear. I only step in when he's doing the latter, and even then I don't do it all the time (fora variety of reasons). Kimball Kinnison * Remember, the burden of proof was on Saddam to document that they had been destroyed, and he had not fully done that, even for WMDs that had actually been destroyed.