"and conveniently twisted it to your advantage in a leap of logic."

RobVG: If you wish to infer that All data from military Intelligence is suspect, then ALL MILITARY INTELLIGENCE DATA IS SUSPECT. X means X. Where the hell am I playing twister?

RobVG:
"What records? Where are they?"
Obviously, if disparate CIA and Military Intel sources are quoted as saying the same things about factual events, then we have records.

"Davin, placing your week argument in a hypothesis wrapper doesn’t make it any more sound."

You miss it entirely. What I am pointing out to you is that there was, befoe the war, MORE DATA to support a hypothesis that SP was NOT a terrorist training camp than supported the hypothesis that it was. THAT is my point. If hyp A (that it is not a Terrorist camp) is weak, it still supersedes hyp b (that it is not a terrorst camp) on the basis of stronger evidence and less assumption.

And guess what, now that we are on the ground, what has borne out?

"You’ve shown nothing more than “testimony” (OPINION) from some unnamed CIA grunt.
Where is the “documented data” you’re talking about?"

What I have is independent corroboration from two disconnected sources from two branches of our intelligence apparatus.

God, don't you get it? All YOU have is the claims by Abu Zeinab and Sabah Khodad, two CONNECTED folks involved with the INC. If you want to attack my data as weak, WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN ABOUT YOURS!? THINK IT THROUGH!!

God when will you drop the faith BS?

I'll say it again:
YOU WERE LIED TO.

Again RobVG, you are really just trying to find wiggle room and hope, not addressing the core issues I am showing to you.

Davin L.