Perhaps you're using the phrase "was developing" in a new and unusual sense. Usually, the phrase is thought to be somewhat different in meaning and tone that a word like "have," "had," or "has".
Examine these two example sentences to get a gist of how I am used to seeing the word used.
The missiles Saddam had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
The missiles Saddam was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME.
Now, the first sentence, "The missiles Saddam
had could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," actually DOES contradict what Ikari wrote because it also talks about what actually existed at the time.
The second sentence, "The missiles Saddam
was developing could hit our allies and US bases in Europe and the ME," refers to developing missiles. Developing is different than having.
I hope you can see now that what my post is describing is not a contention of fact as you seem to think. Rather it is a contention that developing something that you don't have different than having that something.