You're too smart for those type of comments Robert.

Nixon was smarter than Bush and that's why he was so loathed by the masses once he fell from grace and the media piled on. Bush as the master conspiracist just doesn't ring true and you know it. Everyone else knows it in their heart too. He is an average guy trying to get the job done. You know as well as I do or the mainstream public does - that when folks are throwing accusations, administrations instinctively move into defense mode. He's not going to let the media pin him with some sort of conspiracy to disinform tag. It's human nature. No one is going after British Intelligence in the American press, or bothering to really research the Niger uranium issue beyond the soundbyte depth - for exactly the reason that the intelligence is based on sound observations of what is going on in Niger. Linking two disparate criminal elements together is an old practice. Whether it be Saddam and Al Qaeda with uranium merchants and the uranium smugglers or with kings and pirates, where criminal behavior is found - it is easy to flock similar mentalities together. Add Saddam's track record and not having access to one of the most closed systems and nations and it is only natural that intel might paint links where there were none just by seeing one Iraqi agent in Niger and trying to piece it out from there.

It's easy to say that Hitler was further away from the a-bomb after Germany was overrun - but before that feat no one knew. The same is true with Iraq and the WMD claims. Only the grand conspiracists and holocaust denial type mentalities can try to paint a conspiracy around valid concerns based on an existing track record and say that it was all conjured up to go after a "innocent" despot, whether that despot be Hitler or Saddam.

Intellectual honesty demands letting go of partisan sentiments and petty dislikes and grasping at the big picture. You're far more than capable of doing just that.

SDAI-Tech1