Another sophist battle?

So what do you all think about this report on Saddam's WMD?

I was under the impression that the administration couched their argument for war on the existence of WMD, not on embryonic WMD programs. Wasn't that one of the primary reasons for the inspectors, to keep these programs from coming to fruition? But not so, says Andrew Sullivan:

The administration claimed that Saddam had used WMDs in the past, had hidden materials from the United Nations, was hiding a continued program for weapons of mass destruction, and that we should act before the threat was imminent. The argument was that it was impossible to restrain Saddam Hussein unless he were removed from power and disarmed. The war was legally based on the premise that Saddam had clearly violated U.N. resolutions, was in open breach of such resolutions and was continuing to conceal his programs with the intent of restarting them in earnest once sanctions were lifted. Having read the report carefully, I'd say that the administration is vindicated in every single respect of that argument.

I honestly don't know what to make of all this.

You know, goddamnit, I'm tired of having to parse everything politicians say after the fact. Yesterday I complained to my roommate Robert that I was sick and tired of reading about politics, but I can't stop. He agreed, saying they just made him angry, and, "I'd rather be uninformed than angry all the time, because there's nothing I can do about it." My gut really wants to agree with him.

UPDATE: I knew it: Andrew Sullivan is full of shit.