This is fairly obvious, but it's nice to have it confirmed... or re-confirmed... or whatever.
THERE ARE NO WMD IN IRAQ
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1301434,00.html
Tony Blair will be confronted with a fresh challenge over Iraq within the next two weeks when the long-awaited final report of the Iraq Survey Group concludes there were no weapons of mass destruction in the country at the time of the US-UK invasion.
The Guardian has learned that the team of weapons inspectors sent in by Washington and London at the end of the war to comb Iraq will find that though the threat of Saddam Hussein was real, there were no stockpiles.
How exactly a guy with no weapons constitutes a real threat will make interesting reading. As will any discussion on whether a semi-anarchic state overidden with terrorists and religious agitators constitutes less of a threat.
Either way, the question must be framed for swing voters... Bush on WMD: lying or incompetent?