"maybe I missed something, why is Gen. Shinseki in there? and you listed O'Neil twice? "

Shinseki stated before congress prior to the war that to do the occupation 'right' would take up to 200,000 troops. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pretty much ridiculed the guy out of washington. I think they used (before congress) the words "Absurd" (Rumsfeld) and "Wildly off the mark" (Wolfowitz). I once has links to the congressional transcripts, but if I still have them they are not on this computer. You can find sources in google with what I just gave you, though.

Thems pretty harsh words to use against someone. Kind of paints them as an idiot.

The second iteration of O'Neil was supposed to be woodward.

"I don't see much consistency. Are they coroborating each others individual accounts? "<.b>

All three claim Iraq was on the agenda shortly after sept 11th. All three indicate a war plan existing far earlier than Bush and co claim one existed. All of them point to efforts in afghanistan being subservient to the ultimate and undisclosed aim of Iraq. There is a lot of consistency there.

"Just three books, that are probably fine peices of work by themselves, with tiny controversial statements sprinkled in the text on a couple pages."

I don't think you have read clarkes book, either that or you are spinning like a clintonian top.

"these staments are released to the media before hand and the book flies off the shelves due to the ensueing media circus and speculation. Doesn't have to hold up, doesn't have to be true. Just has to sell."

As predicted of the partisans: "Lies! Lies! A buncha damn lies!"

"post on why they are mutually consistent first, them we can discuss it, burden of proof is on you."

Yewah, well, I said the same thing about terrorists and WMD- you didn't take note. Why should I?

Sarcasm aside, above I discuss the consistency.

"who has used this argument?"

Most recently you, with your claim concerning Clarkes book.

"Explain your side first Davin. "

Again. See above.

Davin L.