[Skybird]

Well, if the american policy which led to the war wouldn't have manipulated information so masisvely, told lies and sold all credibility thta was left, people today wouldn't be so aversive against trusting something said by America again. Things like the Uran-Niger-Deal, the Al Quaeda-Saddam-axis, mobile ultra-modern C- and B-weapon labs on trucks, "solid information of Saddam actually having WMDs", and Blair's missile-memo did not helpt to build trustworthiness. as a result nobody believes america anything anymore.

As for me, I will always criticise the war for having been launched as part of a longterm strategic agenda that had nothing to do with WMD and Saddam, and by maniuplating and teling lies to the public. however, I am no dogmatic. I am willing to keep listening to what comes of this story Gaubatz is telling, and on that part concerning Syria, and Iran's distracting role. That I attacked Bush and still do so does not mean that I am in love with the Un or the europeans.

All I demand is solid evidence and reasonable conclusions concernign why it is needed to go to war - and I want this BEFORE declaring war, not a roulette-type game of play: first bomb them, and then hope we find something. I can't move on the street and stab the first person I meet, and when the body is searched it is found it was an explosive belt under the coat - although I prevented a terror attack BY CHANCE, I still would be brought to trial for murder - because at the time of my attack I did not know that it was a terrorist.

War always means death, destruction, and suffering on incredible scale. The highest standards to judge if it is needed or not is just good enough. Let's not repeat the mistakes Bush has made and mess up all credibilitx and trustworthiness again. Longterm support of public opinion can only be secured if it is beyond any doubt that the target of that war effort is as guilty as can be. And only then we can claim the morally superior argument. before any war, we also need to clean pur credibility with regard to our choosen "allies". As long as we call Saudi Arabia and Pakistan "freinds", we are not talking serious, but babble only. We also need to strengthen what in martial arts would be called our "stand": standing on good, solid ground, still being able to move with flexibility. As long as we (and our war machine) depends on Muhameddan oil, we accept an unacceptable ammount of vulnerability. the many econoimical, private and plutocratic ties between western, especially American, oligarchs, and Arab representatoves of the rhich elite, also need to be stopped, for it corrupts parts of our leadership and make these persons act against our own interests.

So, that agent has found "sites". No weapons. He cannot say what was stored there, and when. He made conclusions from that and from resident's witnessing, but this do not replace solid information. I checked the first seven pages in google when entering that man'S name, he does not seem to be a cheater. That he is critical of Islam does not reduce his competence. So my conclusion: the issue is worth to be investigated, and with priority.