We'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, it was lying through omission. He was intentionally trying to mislead by insinuating Iraq had active WMD warheads. That is simply not the case, as quoting Blix's full statement would have shown. They were passive components filled with water, violating the letter of U.S. law (not sure about U.N. definitions), but not even close to matching the Bush administration rhetoric about "massive stockpiles", "mushroom cloud", mobile weapons labs, and a fleet of UAVs poised to strike America's heartland.
I guess we will because I don't believe saying something can carry a warhead is, in anyway, insinuating that it has a warhead - not to mention then going on to say that it doesn't need a warhead to count as a US defined WMD. TO me that statement is a far better insinuation that it didn't have a warhead. He certainly made no reference to Bush claims of massive stockpiles etc so I fail to see what point of including that in your statement when discussing your claimed dishonesty