host

I agree that this is not a normal war. The war in Iraq can credibly be described now, with the final reports of the 9/11 Commission, the Duelfer report regarding Iraq's WMD programs and inve3ntories, the admissions of WH press secretary McClellan on Jan. 12, 2005 that no WMD of signifigance were found, or were likely to be found in the future, and that there was no credible evidence that they had been transferred out of Iraq. The 9/11 Commission fouind that there were no ties found that indicated extensive cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The terrorist training camp and chemical weapons complex described by Colin Powell in his March, 2003 UN presentation is known to be in a Kurdish region in northern Iraq, out of Saddam's influence or control. Questyions were raised by members of congress concerning the lack of U.S. military action against this terrorist training complex, since it was certainly located in an area controlled by U.S. Kurdish allies.

Now we have since May 1, 2005, an undisputed "secret" <a href-"http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/news/politics/11575141.htm">memo</a> from the UK PM's office, minutes of a high level July 23, 2002 meeting where the head of MI6, identified as "C" in that meeting, who was just back from a meeting with counterparts in U.S. Intelligence, reported that, "“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable,” the MI6 chief said at the meeting, according to the memo. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

We also have this addendum, disclosed on May 29:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...632566,00.html
"THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown."

The memo said “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

As I posted evidence of earlier on this thread, there is a strong case to be made that just days after 9/11, a high ranking CIA official and VP Cheney were publicly advocating the beheading of Usama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. You post primarily your absolutist opinions, or you attempt to reduce well documented arguments of others as "Bush bashing", or "google searching", that somehow disqualifies the search results produced and posted as inferior to your undocumented opinions.

What I think we should focus on is whether the President, Vice President, and top members of the administration conspired to first provoke, and then launch an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign state that was essentially minding it's own business, uninvolved with the terrorists who are accused of attacking the U.S. on 9/11, and not guilty of the charges that it possessed and continued to produce WMD. The result is a weakening of our military capability, diplomatic credibility, the ability of the military to attract the best new recruits in necessary numbers, and a loss of credibility of the U.S. executive branch, and the squandering of $300 billion, the avoidable deaths of and serious injuries to more than 10,000 of our military, and to uncounted numbers of innocent Iraqis. This policy has created new vendettas in Iraq, and in the Arab world, bogging down our relatively small fighting forces, and producing a quaqmire in Iraq for the indefinite future.

This is where the question of treason, war crimes, and "playing into the hands of Al Qaeda", alansmithee. There are strong indications that the leadership and the policies that you decry as "Bush bashing", while offering no rebuttal, other than comparing me to a "printing press or a "paper boy", are the undermining and possibly treasonous influences to the genuine U.S.defense.
The patriots are those who demand answers and accountability from our lying, corrupt, and apparently treasonous elected national leaders, a concept increasing over time on the strength of constant new disclosures!