I suggest a course in logic, because there is no lie and no contradiction here. This should be clear to all, but people persist in trying to apply labels that simply don't fit.

Is saying something is a "potential detriment" the same thing as saying it is the "main cause" of action? Only in politics. Here's an example: I might have a cavity on a molar, and an abcess on the same tooth. The cavity is a "potential detriment," but the abcess is the "main cause" for the root canal. See the difference?

Does saying that you believe something exists means that it should be easily found? Obviously not, if it is hidden. Remember, even Hans Blix and every other person under the sun made public statements stating that they were convinced that Iraq has or had WMDs. We have proof that they had them in the past, and no proof that they were ever destroyed. If they were laying around easy to find, the inspection would have found them quickly enough, right?

So either they don't have them, or they do but they're still hidden. Neither option makes Frist a liar.

It's simple logic.