or does the spittle fly further when the news from Iraq does not fit the rosy picture you'd like it to be?

OK, then point by point if I must:

You don't see any fallacy in putting up Kay's words from October last year* as opposed to what he said last bloody week?

I don't know. Do you? Considering the entire current thesis of the anti-Bush element of this board is that Bush is a failure at best and a criminal at worst, for not knowing in 2002 what Kay spent almost a year digging up in 2003. And that when all opposition to his work had been eliminated by military force.

Like I said elsewhere, we invaded, defeated and deposed in order to make really sure that the stuff the UN inspectors had been telling us - an we had been disparaging every damn step of the way - was actually true.
Nice try to get the cop-out "anti-Bush" in there though.

And of course you missed my point.
You posted as proof to your concepts of the mobile lab theory Kay's words of October 2003. You ignored his latest statements. Get it yet? You still dont see this as false?

If Kay, or whoever advised him, thinks those trailers were for the mobile production of rocket fuel, he is dead wrong. I can say that with the confidence of someone who makes his living dealing with that stuff. I will accept the possibility of hydrogen generators, which I do not make my living designing, although nobody has explained to my satisfaction why such artillery balloon systems, readily available on the open market, would need to be developed as much larger and bizarrely constructed custom items.

At the least, the very statement "hydrogen gas or rocket fuel" shows that whoever fed these alternatives to Kay doesn't know what they're talking about, nor do they know jack about what the trailers were actually for. And I would say that to their face.

Volunteer your services to the US military. Either your knowledge will be crucial to their investigation or your arrogance that you absolutely know what they can or cannot be used for (without having seen the things in person no less) will fit right in there with the VP.

Two weeks ago Kay as much as said the weapons had been moved to Syria:
"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved."
Italics mine. Does that sound like an uncertain statement to you?

"a major issue that needs to be resolved" sounds like a pretty uncertain statement to me.
Yet later he vagued out on it. Why?
Later, as in one whole day later, he did vague out on it. Maybe he realised he misspoke the first time. Maybe he wussed out or misspoke the second time. I'm sure someone in the gone-to-sleep media will eventually catch the inconsistency and ask him about it, but I won't hold my breath. (Those incorrigible liberal journalists - just waiting for the first chance to spot a chink in the administration's armour...[sarc off])

DEBKAfile has been insisting this was the case for over a year, but DEBKAfile has a very high pantload factor, and I don't consider it a reliable source.
.......but you'll mention it anyway....:-)

What has been an odd feature of all this, is a seeming tendency of the Bush administration to actually shy away from possible evidence. I did the work on the trailers myself, and a phone call to Marconi from someone Marconi would be willing to talk to would have answered a lot of questions months ago. And I'm just a guy in front of a computer.
I don't quite understand it, but considering the bar for level of proof has been raised to the ionosphere, Bush is probably gun-shy of anything not carved in stone, and no doubt Kay is the same way. Unfortunately, their opponents have no problem clearing nine-foot conclusions from a standing start.

We reach different conclusions from the same data set here. I would argue that the level of proof on the whole shebang was so low right from the start, that this is something so vague even the admin doesn't want to use it. That did not stop Cheney touting the labs as "conclusive evidence" last month though.
Bush should certainly be gun-shy by now - just about everything we knew that we knew turned out to be something that we didn't know we didn't know (with apologies to Rumsfeld)