"I'm still not seeing anything from you refuting Salman Pak other than the Hersh article, and his only refuting source is two anonymous guys. It's worth pointing out that while the credibility of Khodad and Friend raises admitted issues, I see nothing whatsover other than Hersh's sayso on the credibility of his unnamed sources. What are you judging by?"

I'll repeat myself- from our original thread:

I distrust the INC for several reasons, some of which are at least alluded to by Hersh.
1) Challaby and his rather, er, Shady past in 2 other countries. To say the least.
2) NO INC claims of WMD have EVER panned out please recall:
2a) Khidhir Hamza, a former senior Iraqi nuclear official who defected from Iraq and was one of the pigeons of the INC claimed, among other things, that Iraq had a Pressurized Water Reactor completed or nearly completed
2b) That there were underground caverns where Saddam was cooking up nukes (Hamza and others)
2c) That there were active BioWarfare factories at dual-use installations
2d) They [the INC] also claimed Salman Pax was a 'Testing Ground' for Chemical weapons. The testing of Chem weapons, by nature, leaves a detectable trace. There is no such trace at Salman Pax, so everything they say about SP is properly suspect.
3) The INC sought to replace Saddam as the central Iraqi Governmental authority in the post-saddam Iraq. All their supplied 'information' has to be held up and evaluated in the light of that ambition
4) the INC was cutting 'deals' for money with rich international oil corporations for oil they didn't possess- basically taking bets from oil companies on them being in power

I distrust Sabah Khodada, and the unidentified Iraqi for several reasons, some of which are at least alluded to by Hersh.

1) They are connected sources, even though one is unnamed
2) They are connected to the INC, see above
3) Together, they are the ONLY evidence that Saman Pax was a terrorist training center
4) Everything they said can be refuted by other sources of better credibility (the two UNCONNECTED sources brought up by hersh, and the evidence that the Brits helped Iraq set up the site for counter-terror ops)
5) If you look into it, Khodadad is an emigre to the US, and it is in his best interest to tell us what we want to curry enough favor to become a citizen
6) there are NO VERIFYING DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED BY KHODADAD to support
6a) His status in Iraq, or even his access to Salman Pax
6b) Anything he says.
7) That the UN shows that it inspected that area prviously.

"You have to drop the "Bush lied" crap. I have already documented--several times--that the United Nations, other countries, and the Clinton administration were just as convinced that Saddam was concealing WMD. If Bush is lying, they're all lying, and you can't twist around that. Give it a rest"

No, I don't. The Clinton stuff was in the 1990's, when Saddam may very well have had WMD.

You still have yet to document, to me, places where the Euros say- "without a doubt, Saddam has WMD"

I don't have to drop the potentiality that bush lied. There have been a series of MASSIVE screw ups, all supporting his agenda:

1)claims of terrorist ties that did not, and do not hold true
2)claims concerning WMD that did not, and do not hold true- including claims of certain knowledge of location of the WMD (Rumsfeld claimed Tikrit)
3)claims of Iraqi attempted purchase of fissile materials that did not and do not hold true.

1,2 and 3 were outrageoeusly incorrect and were in service of the Bush Admins staited aims (removal of Saddam). Why should I not suspect lies.

1,2 and 3, also and BTW, were not claimed by Clinotn, The UN or Europe in the clear affirmative in 2000, 2001, or 2003 to my knowledge. Please inform me if I am wrong.

Davin L