In legalese they call it "leading" and it is improper.

Only on the witness stand. And since when did you think anything of the legal profession anyway?

You can't stand it that the points were made by citation of reports rather than feeble name-calling.

You said
And they conveniently left out this bit right here.

I find it frightening that a journalist can gloss over 1.5 tons of VX . . .

The "bit right here" includes the following:

He said 1.5 tonnes of VX still to be accounted for "was unilaterally destroyed in a dumping site near al-Muthanna State Establishment, and we have made analyses which strongly indicate that the total material was destroyed there".

Which is to say that the statement you call a glossing over is nothing of the kind. You would like to make me believe it is, but I can read too.

If it wasn't destroyed, and hence non-existent, where is it now?

Your quote from 2002 that says Iraq could get nuclear weapons within months is another way of saying that Iraq at that time had no nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqis had gotten hold of nuclear weapons, where are they now?

So they are selectively quoting things to paint the war as falsely justified even though they fail to balance it with other quotes.

Your link to the other quotes are a list of year-old speculations about how long it will take the Iraqis to produce biological, nuclear and chemical weapons. If it would have taken months for them to produce these things, then they did not have them at the time. The whole point here is that the Administration, through Mr. Powell, said that they did have them, and used that evaporating reality to stage an invasion.

Your sidebar about Mr. Hanley's book about an atrocity committed during the Korean War only shows that you believe any exploration of American military behavior that is less than rose-colored is evil. So much for self-examination.

Your speculation about Mr. Hanley's future work is spurious and beside the point. You want to turn an article that analyzed Mr. Powell's remarks by direct comparison with other authoritative reports into an argument over the author's motives. Tell me, if someone turns in his neighbor for a criminal act because the neighbor is having an affair with his wife, does that make the crime less serious? Even if Mr. Hanley has an anti-American agenda (which you have not proved: the book reveals an anti-atrocity agenda), his article is not reflective of any attempt to paint America as a bad nation. It paints the stated case for war that this Administration put forward as incorrect, in a big way. Did Mr. Powell know this? That is not established.

Powell's testimony is presented by Hanley as a bunch of lies to sponsor a war which killed thousands of people and hundreds of US soldiers - I'd call that "demonizing".

Mr. Powell's testimony is presented by Hanley as incorrect. Whether he knew it was incorrect when he said it is not addressed here. So far, you are the only one in this conversation who has said Mr. Powell lied. Is that what you believe?

The easiest way to read the piece objectively is to put yourself in it. Replace Colin's name with Mary Anne and reread the piece. Do you feel demonized? How do you think Colin feels?

On the contrary, the easiest way to read the piece subjectively is to put myself into it.

If I substitute my name for Colin Powell's, first of all, that would make me into the Secretary of State, and as such, I would be subject to public criticism and to analysis of my words and deeds. I would hold a very high office. Therefore, it would be ridiculous for me to get thin-skinned about something that I know full well is part of my job description.

Second, how I would feel about what he said... hmm... I would either know it was true or wonder whether it was. If I knew it was true, I would be furious at him for pointing out the various places where I had Lied. If I wondered if it were true, I would feel like a chump for having reported to the world community a collection of data that was presented to me as true and incontrovertible. After all, if it were all true, where the hell is all the stuff now?

Demonized, no. Played for a sucker, yes.