Iraq is located on what could be considered the most valuable piece of property in the world. Everybody wants it. Your whole argument is based simply on the idea that Saddam wants special weapons, which I could agree with, and the mistaken illusion that he wants to rule the world, which I think is a paranoid delusion you have developed by listening too much to people who are in the pockets of oil companies. You need to recognize that there is huge profit in oil… it is beyond your wildest fantasies. As the oil dwindles, the situation will become even more profitable for those who are in the right places.

What we should be doing is replacing every petroleum product that we have become dependant on and do it as rapidly as possible before it is too late. But, if you are making hundreds of billions of dollars a year, this is the last thing you want and people exist in this world who are so greedy that killing hundreds of thousands of innocents means nothing to them. It is as simple as that.

Does the 2002 NIE prove anything? No, it does not. Now that we are in Iraq, you can see just how far this report was overblown. Even if it hadn’t been, too much of it is just based on supposition. The whole thing is riddled with ifs and maybes and possiblies to the point that even if it’s worst case scenario is right, it is still not enough to go to war like this. The most important issue which would have to be proven would be that Saddam had the intent to go on a murderous rampage and I don’t see that. Saddam is not an idiot and he is not psychotic. It doesn’t add up. He has no affiliation with a doomsday nihilist like Osama bin Laden (who was probably working in conjunction with some faction of our own government… as I said, nothing is going to surprise me at this point).

It bothers me when I hear Americans talk about how Saddam has used WMD before and that is their rationale for attacking. If we go by that logic, the US should have been wiped out a long time ago because we’ve killed a hellofalot more people with nukes than Saddam ever did with chemicals. The problem with your ideas on going to war with Iraq is that it ignores the possibility that Saddam was just desperately trying to find a way to protect Iraq, not just from Iranians and Kuwaitis and whoever, but also from oil addicted nations like the US, China and Israel.

Occam’s Razor states: “Given two equally predictive theories, choose the simpler.” Which of these two theories sounds more likely to you? Saddam was trying to take over the world (something which he would never develop the capability to do and would have just gotten him a serious asskicking) or Saddam was demonized and manipulated and made a target of so that some greedy bastards could rake in oil profits? Be honest.

You need to lift and shift fire from this manufactured enemy and direct it to the correct enemy, my friend. If such a thing exists, I would say your immortal soul depends on it. If it does not exist, at the very least, your children’s future depends on it.

How many pages have been written to date by partisan commissions regarding pre-war intelligence and the Bush admins use of intelligence?

Its deep in to the hundreds — maybe thousands already.

We have the 9/11 commission, Robb-Silverman, Intel Subcommittee, etc. You can add the Brit Butler report as well.

The Dems latest attacks, and Bush lied mantra, are certainly getting traction, but it will come back to haunt them in the end. Every commission to date has clearly concluded that the admin did not lie about anything. In fact, they are producing juicy excerpts that paint the Dems as hypocrits. The latest argument they are trying to ply on the public is that Bush manipulated intel to deliberately overstate the threat from Saddam. First off, I doubt many dems even bothered to read the NIE before voting to support the President’s position. Second, the Robb-Silverman report showed clearly that while the PRes may have had more intel data, what he had was even less nuanced and more damning of Saddam.

You missed this dead baby pic!

I’m sure it was just an oversight. We all know and respect how you present a fair and balanced viewpoint on the events in Iraq as an effort to present the objective truth.

Democrats tried unsuccessfully Thursday to force the House to take up a measure condemning Republicans for “their refusal to conduct oversight” of the Bush administration’s Iraq war policy and to order investigations into it.

The House voted 220–191, mostly along party lines, to set aside a resolution offered by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

“I think it brings shame to the House for this Congress to be engaged in a cover-up when it comes to revealing what’s happening in Iraq,” Pelosi said.

President Bush’s job approval has reached the lowest level yet. Only 35 percent approve of the job he’s doing.