Who's the genius that decided to have Kerry run as a 'war hero'???

I'm afraid I still don't trust George Dubya. He seems to me like a spoiled, rich kid who got older, but never grew up, and has to have everything his way, no matter the consequences.

Funny, I thought it was Kerry who was the spoiled rich kid.

Originally posted by netbound
I could claim to be Elvis Presley, aka Agent Fountain Pen, if I wanted to, but that wouldn�t make it so.

Well, actually if it was as obvious to me as it is to you�then how have you been doing Elvis? Been a while.

And so the person who supposedly made those inflammatory remarks�.who by the way has according to your own linked article contradicted himself�..hmm I guess that we should take everything he says as truth�.let�s see you argument is based on doubting people who have not contradicted themselves, by relying on those who do. Hmm, and you think he wanted to backup the administration by�let�s see blowing apart their case, and then well contradicting himself. Wow, we seem to be going in circles here.

Originally posted by netbound
�..Keep in mind, David Kay wanted to backup the administration and not place the blame on it for the misleading information provided to the public as justification for invading Iraq.

Originally posted by netbound
However, to use information that has not been confirmed, and is at best questionable, as justification for a pre-emptive strike against a nation, is misleading to put it nicely, and lying to be more accurate.

Let�s see I wonder just how many bodies you would like as confirmation�does that need to be just random Americans or do you want someone from you immediate family first? Let me let you in on a little secret�intelligence is confirmed by action�what do you think that Iraq was going to confirm it? And thanks again for reminding me to teach my 6 years olds the subtle difference of content and intent with regards to lying.

Originally posted by netbound
It's just so obvious to me that the invasion of Iraq was George Dubya's obsession, and that he was going to go through with it no matter what. I find it disturbing.

And that is what makes you so resistant to evidence; at least you�re willing to admit it.

Originally posted by netbound
The United States, meanwhile, never mentioned the Russian intelligence in its arguments for going to war.

I can�t believe that the president didn�t expose our intelligence sources; maybe just for you he could have published a picture and home address for the Russian agent as well.

Originally posted by netbound
What does �sheltered terrorist groups� mean? ��������. but I don�t recall ever reading or hearing any actual evidence to substantiate it. The President�s allegation is not, in and of itself, proof. It�s not even evidence. It�s merely hearsay.

Well then you just haven�t been paying attention very well. The second link is to the world sought after terrorist who was living in Bagdah after receiving care for his leg wounded in Afghanistan�how he was found. A reporter looked him up in the phone book. The US and Jordan had both requested him from Iraq.
www.globalsecurity.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by netbound
Highly questionable hearsay.

I guess it�s obvious again.

Originally posted by netbound
��. then I would have been all for the invasion.

I guess that�s obvious as well.

Originally posted by netbound
���. after members of a U.S. commission looking into the September 11 attacks found there was no collaborative relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

notice the use of collaborative.

Originally posted by netbound
The above is an example of EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my previous post, where it mentions �sketchy� and �extrapolated� information. In that post I state,

I notice that you provided no evidence that the quote was false, you just made the jump in the same direction�yet again.

Originally posted by netbound
Obviously, the Bush/Cheney/Powell interpretation of the facts is quite different from the 9/11 Commission interpretation. This only serves to strengthen my argument.

the only thing I see as obvious is that hind sight is 20/20�.seeing as how the vast majority of the commission voted for.

Originally posted by netbound
If Bush/Cheney insist on making public statements pertaining to this so-called �relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda�, then why can�t they back it with solid intelligence?

Well read the report that you keep quoting because most of the 9/11 commission members are on record as saying there is a �relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda�

Originally posted by netbound
The CNN article �Bush insists Iraq, al Qaeda had relationship�, at www.cnn.com..., states,

�After bin Laden asked for space in Iraq for training camps, the report said, Iraq apparently never responded."

the funniest thing is you actually link to proof that discredits part of you previous argument��what training camps did they want into�..spelling training camps.

Originally posted by netbound
"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

like a ringing bell notice the use of collaborative.

Originally posted by netbound
I�m sorry, but I just don�t see the tie. ��

pretty obvious to you, huh.

Originally posted by netbound
cnnstudentnews.cnn.com...,

hmm, lets see you link a bunch of talking heads as proof�.