I guess when the very Baathists in question admit they worked with al Qaeda pre and post invasion they aren't too believe either because they are just "schilling for Republicans" or are "biased." Are those sources no good too?

You are still aren't getting my point. I am linking to other people discussing a topic. Not sure how that discredits a topic.

I should think that point blindingly obvious. He's not interested in the truth, he's more interested in whether or not his myopic view of the situation is validated. Your sources don't do that.

You're hilarious. A blackhead pimple on the body politic.

Wanna try a serious response?

Also, I personally don't give a damn what the government says on this topic, pro or con. I am quite distrustful of what governnments do regardless of their party affiliation I looked at Saddam's links from beginning to end with an open mind in AP stories, Washington Post stories, NYTimes, captured documents, speeches they've made and interviews these guys have done with foreign media outlets. The story I've got on the subject is absolutely out of touch with what our incurious American press has concluded with far less attempt to understand.

I'll ask you this, when Izzat al Douri tells TIME magazine and other press outlets that he considers Zarqawi his brother in arms and had sworn fealty to him, what does it make you think? This is an abberation of the "rule" that secularists won't work with Islamists? When you start seeing a pattern of this sort of thing going on in Iraq since 2002 you start to realize that the "rule" is a rule that needs to be thrown out and the whole thing needs to be looked at anew. If you'd really like to discuss this and see some stuff I've found on my own drop me an email through my site. I'd be happy to talk to you about it.

As for using other blogs as a source, well, when one links to another's blog post (as opposed to the straight news feed that blog uses), especially one with a known POV/bias/reputation/whatever, it tends to imply a certain support. If I were to hook a link to, say, Weekly World News, and say "look - these guys are talking about Bat Boy too!", I would expect certain... reactions.

I'll give you one very very recent example: What Scooter perjured himself to protect.

Let's just talk about what's actually been found in Iraq instead of what beltway politicians have said on the topic.

You propose that we should just stop having a foreign policy until then?

I propose that we shouldn't take his word on anything; that the Congress should re-assert its constitutional authority wrt warmaking (and revoke the bogus not-really-a-war-declaration 'authorization', and start the clock ticking on the War Powers Act); and that bloggers who keep wanting to have it both ways should be forced to lay it on the line: why, on earth, should we trust you guys again when you lied the last time around with such drastic consequences.

Who's arguing that? Michael Gordon and Jim Rutenberg. To wit: "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist before the September 11th attacks."

That's like saying Hillary Clinton did not exist before she married Bill.

You propose that we should just stop having a foreign policy until then?

Don't tempt me.

And part of that dialog should be whether we should trust the batch that got us into this mess in the first place. You still are, of course, because they're on your team.

Well, no. But the fact of the matter is that the president was elected and will serve as the president until January 2009. You propose that we should just stop having a foreign policy until then?

But that should take place alongside an honest dialog about the best way forward.

And part of that dialog should be whether we should trust the batch that got us into this mess in the first place. You still are, of course, because they're on your team.

somehow Iraq managed to wholly cleanse itself of Al Qaeda and be a moojie-free zone.

Who's arguing that?