Tom wrote:
"Have you noticed how many of your counterarguments on these links break down to "I don't like what this particular source or defector had to say, so he must have been lying.""

No, they break down to "This entire story boils down to the word of ONE person in custody of a group of people with understandably questionable motives"
[The kurds and their pet 'Iraqi Intelligence officer]

This goes, basically for AAI

Given what the Kurds have endured, it is within their best interest as a people to have the US invade and topple saddam- Additionally, they are more than willing to use 'optional' or 'creative' means to survive- hell its their right as a people brutalized by every government in the area!.

Additionally- given that AAI is KURDISH, is lead BY KURDS and operates with the financial support of IRAN, a blood enemy of Saddam- its really just ludicrous to suppose (in the absence of any sound eviddence) that they are in cahoots with Saddam. Really absolutely perposterous, barring any evidence.

Salman Pax boils down to the testimony of two 'friends' linked together through the INC- a group with not only questionable motives, but of questionable integrity... Challaby has a certain stink about him dating back to some pretty flamboyant banking malfeasance.

So two claimants who can only reffer to eachother, mutually, does not make for a reliable source. Then add on to that
1) Other explanations exist for Salman Pax (counter terror training camp)
2) Those other explanations have more evidence to back them (that Brit and Amer Intel have RECORDS of assisting in the set up of Salman Pax, when Iraq was an ally, AS a counter-terror training camp)
3) These two are 'backed' and 'sponsored' by the INC- which may be their only source of support or staying in the west and out of Iraq... I don't know about you, but if I were in their shoes with a family, I'd be willing to 'dance' a little.

WRT to the MKO, thats just insane- patently, from the get-go. From multiple sources, including our own state department.

I actually think when you look into ALL of these matters you end up with the unbacked claims of our gov't that usually trace down to really impeachable and bogus stuff coming from one-or-two really scetchy and uncomfirmed people on one side, and on he other you get things that are clear, consistent with known facts about the region and the groups, does not contradict itself, is verifiable and comes from a multitude of sources. THATS why with the terrortism claims I have NEVER been convinced or even swayed.

Frankly, the fact that they even make these [the terrorist] claims lead me to strongly suspect that they are willfully lying about this stuff, because the claims LACK ANY SEMBLANCE of veracity- and they [the gov't] are supposed to have the full power of the US Intelligence agencies at their back! Yet their claims are entirely discountable by a monkey with a search engine and some discrimination of sources.

So if this stuff stinks of being a bald faced fabrication, why should I suspect different about the WMD?

and thanks, Tom, for the link (http://dod.mil/transcripts/2003/tr20030604-0248.html), I will be sure to give it a read, hopefully before I fly off to okie land.

Best
Davin L.