"small supplies" and "intention of building atomic weapons"
sounds nearly as poetic as "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities." Many dictators have "intentions", not just Saddam, but do they have the capabilities?

The only problem with your comment is that Bush and co made much bigger statements concerning the "imminent threat", uranium from Africa, tons of WMD, responsibility for 9/11, ties to Al Qaeda.

You are wrong about Duelfer: He uncovered numerous banned weapons-related programs, but did not find stockpiles, which were 1 of 7 stated reasons for United States President George W. Bush ordering the invasion of Iraq to remove Saddam.

And you are wrong about David Kay: David Kay, resigned his position, stating that he believed WMD stockpiles would not be found in Iraq. "I don't think they existed."

You should not have called Cirincione a "psychotic", but used another word starting with i. Then you would have used three insults in row starting with i.

The point is that Iraq wasn't an imminent threat and Iran is neither. Don't let the fear mongers fool you again.

Spinsanity has a balanced take on "imminent threat" debate:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html

why has the phrase become so commonly used and an object of such contention? It first gained wide usage based on the National Security Strategy of the United States, a document published in September 2002 that outlined the U.S. government's policy for national defense. In it, the Bush administration argued that the concept in international law of "imminent threat" - which allows countries to defend themselves against opponents who are poised to attack them - must be given a new meaning in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:

For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat-most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction-weapons that can be easily concealed, delivered covertly, and used without warning...

...The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.

Blogger Josh Marshall argued that this assertion justifies claims that the White House did say Iraq poses an imminent threat. "For my money, one of the most revealing quotes is the passage in the National Security Strategy the White House released in 2002, which essentially argues that the concept of 'imminent threat' must be reinterpreted to apply to countries like Iraq," he wrote.