Three government reports, the latest being the Senate majority (Democratic) report all say the Bush Administrations comments leading up to the Iraq war were supported by the inteligence.

There you go again, inventing your own facts. Here's what SSCI 2004 looked at:

the objectivity, reasonableness, independence, and accuracy of the judgments reached by the Intelligence Community

Here's what was explicitly excluded from SSCI 2004:

[looking into] whether public statements, reports, and testimony regarding Iraq by US. Government officials made between the Gulf War period and the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom were substantiated by intelligence information

(See pages 1 and 2.) Silberman-Robb also had no mandate to investigate Bush. Here's how they put it:

… we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information.

You're also misrepresenting what the recent Senate report said. What a surprise.

what was originally charged, turns out to have been the case

Really? This is what Bush said we'd find:

500 tons of mustard gas and nerve gas, 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 29,984 prohibited munitions capable of delivering chemical agents, several dozen Scud missiles, gas centrifuges to enrich uranium, 18 mobile biological warfare factories, long-range unmanned aerial vehicles to dispense anthrax

(All the claims listed above, including all the numbers cited, came out of either Bush's mouth or Powell's mouth, or possibly both. Very detailed further analysis is here and here.)

We found that stuff? Really? Tell us about it.

Speaking of false statements, hopefully you can explain how these statements are something other than lies:

- we found the weapons of mass destruction
- he wouldn't let them in

Wilson's advised the CIA that Iraq had sought increased trade with Niger. The Iraqi who asked was the Iraqi represenative to the Vatican. The Iraqi representative to the Vatican was the former head of the Iraqi nuclear program.

Wrong. You're mixing up two different stories. Maybe intentionally. It is correct that Zahawie, Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican, visited Niger in 2/99. But this is not the trip connected to the famous "expanding commercial relations" statement. That was a separate trip, in 6/99.

The nonsense you're spouting about Zahawie traces back to this article by Hitchens. All he does is present lots of unsubstantiated speculation about Zahawie. R-S considered Zahawie so important that they mentioned him in this many sentences: one. SSCI considered Zahawie so important they they mentioned him this many times: zero.

Zahawie was not part of the 6/99 visit that was about "expanding commercial relations" (and that was the visit Wilson reported to the CIA). In all his words about Zahawie, Hitchens never bothers to clarify this. I think he intended to confuse people in this regard, and I think your confusion is an example of him succeeding.

If you're interested in more detail: Hitchens discusses Zahawie here. Zahawie responds to Hitchens here. Hitchens responds to Zahawie's response here. More of Hitchens rehashing his rant about Zahawie is here.

By the way, the person who allegedly said the magic words ("expanding commercial relations") to Mayaki was not even an Iraqi.

Another seldom-reported fact: Iraq and Niger did indeed have "commercial relations," and it had nothing to do with yellowcake. Iraq sold oil to Niger.

One snippet from the State of the Union speech does not constitute the entire case for war as presented by the Bush administration. … It is understandable that you want to focus on the only item that presents even the slightest support for your position

I realize you and I are on the same side of this argument. But I still want to clarify something.

I don't see how the 16 words provide "even the slightest support" for Bit's position. The 16 words were wrong. Saddam was not seeking yellowcake in Africa. On the contrary. According to Duelfer, he turned down an offer. According to Robb-Silberman, there was nothing to back up the 16 words outside of forged documents.

I'll take this as a sign you've run out of argument again.

Or you could take it for what it is, an attempt to get you to stop running from the issue and re-engage. Comon' Mavrick, you can do it.

Bush said he was taking us to war with Iraq BECAUSE THEY HAD WMD.

There were no WMD.

All you semantic nonsense, bobbing and weaving, and spinning of fantasies from right wing rant sites does not change this...

The fictional Col. Jessup was deranged, but at least he actually had the guts to put himself in harms way for what he believed..

I've noted your pattern is to lean toward the ad hominem when you run out of argument. I'll take this as a sign you've run out of argument again.

Is this really how you see yourself? The sentinel up on the wall, keeping watch... trying to open our eyes to truths which we are either unable or unwilling to accept?

The fictional Col. Jessup was deranged, but at least he actually had the guts to put himself in harms way for what he believed...

you're so busy creating war-monger scenarios you neglect what was originally charged, turns out to have been the case.

One snippet from the State of the Union speech does not constitute the entire case for war as presented by the Bush administration. You may choose to interpret it as such, but that does not make it so.

It is understandable that you want to focus on the only item that presents even the slightest support for your position, but that does not mean the rest of us wish to wear blinders...

So what is the argument for war in the Bitverse now? That we "punished" Saddam because he "intended" to get WMD? Cause where I live we were told that Saddam had WMD, we knew were they were, and we were going to war because he was poised to strike at us...

Perhaps you'd better come back to the real world where even in our court system, intent is a factor in assigning punishment.

But intent is _not_ a factor in determining guilt. You can't be punished for "wanting to commit a crime". Intent, minus attempt, is perfectly legal.

Intent, alone, has never been a crime. That's *all* you have, *all* that you've ever had wrt Saddam and WMDs.

Again, untrue, as his own records demonstate.

I say again, you're dealing from a busted flush, and apparently you're the only one who doesn't understand the ramifications of that.

Intent, alone, has never been a crime. That's *all* you have, *all* that you've ever had wrt Saddam and WMDs. It's laughable to make the argument that, after a *real* crime has been committed, intent figures into the punishment therefore *intent*, alone, must be punishable.

Again, this is trivial, freshman grade logic problems that even my 3 year old daughter can figure out.