I just had a mini argument about WMD's in Iraq...

Then they can come back with 'Oh, you callin me a liar?!' rather than actually having to offer any evidence. It's lazy on their part.

It's trying to strengthen an argument with unsubstantiated proof. They should have to name them and invite them into the conversation to make their case. Chases are they are the cousin of someone brother-in-law in another state that knows someone who was in the same town as the person who made the claim.

So ask them who these people are and if they would be willing to convince you that they are eye witnesses to seeing WMDs in Iraq that weren't already tagged by the inspection teams. (You have to cover all bases with these people. Yeah there were chemical weapons in Iraq but they were tagged and secured until Dumya and company destroyed the country.

And it never worked that great for mine!

She says I just have to take her word for it. I said, well, since I don't actually know you, that's kinda tough. Do you have any proof at all??

No, her SECURITY CLEARANCE wouldn't allow it.

I called bullshit and she stuck her nose in the air and left the discussion.

What wasn't found was signs of ongoing production and development.

and embarrassing to the West because they were weapons we already knew were there AND we helped create them.

We knew about them. Those aren't what we were looking for, though. That's probably what the argument OP was talking about stemmed form.

The argument for the war was "an ongoing programs of WMD's and that there was a large, secret stockpile of chemical weapons. Sure, they found some-- rusted, corroded and degraded, left-overs from the Iran-Iraq war.

Hans Blix however, stated that Iraq had made demonstrable reductions, and disarmament was proceeding as quickly and efficiently as possible.

maybe that one where he made fun of the search

Disgusting.