leauki, put sarcasm tags around your sarcasm, some people will take it seriously, and quote it as fact later on ("i heard the zionist war criminals killed 1000 every 3 weeks).

Show thrower?  Babs Streisand was over there?

They already say that.

And if they say and compare it to the numbers they made up for the Iraq war, Israel will look very good indeed.

oh, some people surely already do. I meant some people who weren't saying it will be inspired by your sarcasm to start.

The thing is Powell never fooled many of us from the beginning. I saw Powell's presentation to the UN and I thought he was lying then. So did everyone I've ever spoken to about it and the I recall the media informing us that people with far more clout than me also thinking the same way. This is not a view I have come to simply because Iraq was a failure, but because I was never convinced in the first place and I never had the impression that Colin Powell's heart was in it. We could go round in circles debating the reasons for other people voting with him, but I don't think we'd get anywhere. Bush was the Commander in Chief. If he'd have succeeded I'd have given him full credit, not the Congress. Same goes for failure in finding WMDs and in accompishing the original mission.

The point is these are contentious issues. Agreeing with you Dr Guy does not make Sheridan analytical. My mother knows the guy personally and "analytical" is far from the word tat occurs to mind. He regularly goes in half cocked on foreign issues that he simply hasn't read up on and now is making a living out of being right wing. YOU have usually struck me as being more intelligent than that. That said, I never agree with you. I just think you're more honest and less full of yourself.

Well, I was in Iraq and didn't get the impression that it was a failure.

As for the theories about Saddam's WMDs becoming a "lie" once they were used by Bush and Powell, that's for a liberal to explain.

Being partisan does not preclude one from being analytical.  But then being partisan can make you blind to facts, figures and truths if you automatically dismiss anything said by anyone that ever once disagreed with you.  I can agree or at least recognize an analysis, and may not agree with any or everything the writer has to offer.  But that does not invalidate the work at hand.  You on the other hand dismiss it out of hand because you dont like the man's politics.  No one is stopping you from doing so, but then you do tend to look the fool when proof shows you that in one instance, he was right (hypothetically speaking).

I am so glad you are omniscience.  I can see Bush indeed failed in his pick of Powell, and it should have been you instead since you do know it all.  Sadly, you are in a very small minority as most (with present company of the author of this blog excepted) of humanity are mere mortals taht do not know it all, and the vast majority of them do not even claim to.

Actually, being analytical results in one being partisan.

Lie is to say something you think to be false... All the intelligence agencies were sure of their existance, thus it was not a lie, it was at most a mistake (it wasn't). For powell and bush to lie they had to be privvy to information which others in congress did not have, and willfully hid it.

People seem to fixate on WMD's but fail to recall that Iraq was in violation of a few UN resolutions, any of which would justify the invasion. The US did what the UN should have done. This is why the UN has no cred. It's the League of Nation all over again, only more expensive to operate.

yes, people who have nothing to stand on (liberals on iraq, christians on creationism, etc) love using strawman arguments...

The WMD apply to MORE than just nukes. And Iraq was in violation of resolutions as well as a direct threat and a brutal dictator... and it funded our enemies... there were many valid reasons to invade it.