As much as I would like to believe this, I don't. First off the document says "And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria." That's all fine and dandy, but Syria is not Iraq. Maybe the two shared common goals as "collaborators" (bomb the US, Islam rules!), but that does not make them directly involved.

"The document was obtained by the Iraqi National Congress and first disclosed on the CBS program "60 Minutes" by INC leader Ahmed Chalabi. A U.S. official said the document appears authentic. " Secondly the Iraqi National Congress is friendly friendly with Bush so they have a reason to falsify a document (not that I'm claiming this). Thirdly, who is this "U.S. official?" I'm not going to trust jack shit from a nameless citation.

Is it so difficult to believe... or are you unwilling to accept the possibility simply because it contradicts your opinion?

As to the statement "And he is in good relationship with our section in Syria."- no shit Syria is not Iraq. Being as how this is (reported to be) a document from the Iraqi Intelligence Service, they are obviously referring to operatives of an Iraqi Intelligence section operating in Syria. It would be naive to suggest that Iraq didn't have operatives in countries like Syria.

And what difference does it make who the US official is? You'd simply label them as a member of the Bush administration who is trying to justify the war in Iraq, and therefore biased and unreliable.

I'm as skeptical as anybody, but to discount the possibility that this document is genuine based on nothing more than personal bias is not the trait of someone with "a freed mind".

If it is true, the document is also over 10 years old... If you go back just a little further, wouldn't you also find Osama listed as one of our allies against the evil Soviet Empire? And wasn't Hussien once also considered a "friendly"?

For a link to be relevant, it's gonna have to be a hell of a lot more recent that this...

I'll take a few quick cracks at this, which will go off topic:

1) Osama would never cooperate with Saddam because he is a religious extremist: Uh, no. I have no doubt that many of his followers are religious extremists, but I honestly have to doubt Osama's own religious leanings. I personally believe he uses the religious beliefs of his followers to further his own political agenda, and I don't think I'm alone in this belief.

2) It's ten years old, and he was still working with the US - US-Osama relations were seriously chilled by the Gulf War in 1990 and by that time hadn't been too peachy after the end of the war in Afghanistan. This document was from 1993.

3) Sadaam wouldn't support Bin Laden - why not? It was well known that he supported terrorist groups in Palestine, why not support those against his greatest enemy, especially if he could do it through proxies.

There's a lot of reasons to believe this document. The Bush administration doesn't appear to be playing it up too much, though. Interesting indeed.

Is it so difficult to believe. If it were a true document, I would not give a hoot. All it says is Iraq was in bed with Syria and Osama was in bed with Syria. Just because Syria has two boy friends doesn't mean they have three-ways together. To me this is not enough to tie Iraq and Osama together. Is that so difficult to believe?

"you unwilling to accept the possibility simply because it contradicts your opinion" - I am willing to accept it. I stated my opinion. Never did I state that the document wasn't real, it was simply my opinion. If I could see more supporting evidence of it then I would be willing to except it. Right now I am not as there is clearly not enough supporting evidence of the document. And there is clearly not enough evidence within the document (on what I've seen so far) showing a DIRECT relationship between Iraq and Osama.

"It would be naive to suggest that Iraq didn't have operatives in countries like Syria. " How did you get that from my post? Don't assume H.P.

"And what difference does it make who the US official is? You'd simply label them as a member of the Bush administration who is trying to justify the war in Iraq, and therefore biased and unreliable." - It doesn't matter that it came from Bush or you. I don't give anything credibility without a name behind it. Ever work in a business before? It's a common thing to do.

I'm as skeptical as anybody, but to discount the possibility that this document is genuine based on nothing more than personal bias is not the trait of someone with "a freed mind". - Do you see the contradiction in your statement. What do you define as a free mind? Is it one that feels free to question things, or is it one who takes every bit of info. from the government, eats it and loves it--like you? Have another whopper H.P., you sure do love them.

I'm confused by what you wrote. You seem to slam the document in the first three statements and then support it in the last with "There's a lot of reasons to believe this document. The Bush administration doesn't appear to be playing it up too much, though". I don't understand how you can say there are a lot of reasons to believe the document right after you bashed it.

was countering points others had made regarding the validity of the document. He attacked these arguements:
1) Osama would not cooperate with Saddam (ChePibe maintained he would.)
2) The document is too old (ChePibe maintains the document is modern enough to be considered relevant.)
3) Saddam would not support bin Laden (ChePibe asserted he would.)

ChePibe's arguements weren't concerned primarily with the authenticity of the document, but with others' arguements stating that the document is false and that Iraq and al Qaeda could have no connection.

Hey, have you been studying for the LSAT or something? ;)

Thanks!

You still don't get it:

All it says is Iraq was in bed with Syria and Osama was in bed with Syria

No, it says that Iraqi government agents operating in Syria were in bed with Osama. Big difference.

And there is clearly not enough evidence within the document (on what I've seen so far) showing a DIRECT relationship between Iraq and Osama.

Assuming the document is genuine, what more do you want? A picture of Saddam sucking Osama's dick?

Is it one that feels free to question things, or is it one who takes every bit of info. from the government, eats it and loves it--like you?

First off, this didn't come from the government, it came from 2 separate media sources, one of which- CBS- is no fan of the Bush administration. Second, I've never said that I'm totally confident this is authentic or not- I don't know one way or another... but I'm not going to discount it out of hand as you seem to have done.

You've given the distinct impression that you don't want to believe this to be true simply because it would contradict what you've been saying about the goverments' motivation for going to war. Again, not the trait of "a freed mind".

Ever work in a business before? It's a common thing to do.

Ever work for the government? It's a commonthing NOT to do. I'm not talking Joe Schmoe contractor working as a receptionist or lackey writing code for their time-clock software.

Government workers who have a bit of power or authority, or are rivy to sensitive documents and could be jeapordizing themselves or their relatives if they were to be named.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement. What do you define as a free mind? Is it one that feels free to question things, or is it one who takes every bit of info. from the government, eats it and loves it--like you? Have another whopper H.P., you sure do love them.

I don't see a contradiction. He even stated he is skeptical himself. However when someone blindly lets their bias make decisions for them it isn't being open minded. It appears like you are saying, "I refuse to accept ro believe it unless all doubt is removed." That isn't being open minded. Someone would be hard pressed to remove all doubt from everything just to convince you of the validity of a single document.

What do you need for proof? Videotapes that your father made of the people typing or writing the document? Also, personally verified information including fingerprints taken by you or someone you trust along with verification that these people were actually in ap osition of power to make desicions or provide critical information?

The government also encompases other folks like liberals. I wouldn't imagine he "loves" that shit they throw out there to discredit the man in charge. So that statement you made and him feeding on it seems like more of a biased attack. If you are going to do that, at least clarify it and make sure you state that the only government you are talking about are the "nazi" "facist" "dictator" "republican" "neocons" in office.

Even thought I disagree with HP quite often and he is hard headed, he would at least be willing to accept evidence provided unless he had a way to actually counter it. He wouldn't just presume it false unless someone could covince him further. (Aside from a particular argument in the past involving chemicals, physics, etc. which he claimed he could break it down to defend his argument but failed to provide it. But he's human and makes mistakes.)

You however, presume everyone guilty until proven innocent. You are NOT open minded. Even when provided with evidence, you want more. It is never enough. Even the evidence provided needs evidence to support it.

Occam's razor would support the statements made. They are simple and plausible.

Your tin-foil hat is slipping.

I'm used to quotes I guess.

You are like my x-girlfriend who liked to bring up old dirt.

You've given the distinct impression that you don't want to believe this to be true simply because it would contradict what you've been saying about the goverments' motivation for going to war. Again, not the trait of "a freed mind". - What does what I said months ago have to do with an honest opinion today? My opinion is unbiased in relation to my thoughts on why we went to war. If anyone is biased it is you...all hail the republicans! I brought Bush up in my original post to this thread because, in my eyes, his administration will benefit the most from this in light of the upcoming election. That has nothing to do with my previous posts. Nice try though.

"No, it says that Iraqi government agents operating in Syria were in bed with Osama. Big difference. " - What I got from this was both Iraq and Osama were helping out Syria. Does this connect them? Yes, but indirectly. The document says "collaborators", but what are they collaborating in?

"Assuming the document is genuine, what more do you want? A picture of Saddam sucking Osama's dick?" - I'll leave the gay porn to you H.P. ;-) What do I want? Photographs, financial transactions, weapons transactions, physical evidence that directly ties them together. Something that shows their collaboration is a threat to the world's security. You know, the same evidence that would stand up in our own court system.

"First off, this didn't come from the government, it came from 2 separate media sources, one of which- CBS- is no fan of the Bush administration. " - So, what's your point? That has nothing to do with the validity of the document. Do you think CBS WOULDN'T come out with this because they don't like him? Duh...

Did any of that have to do with the original argument? Or was it another baby-boy attack on me? Either way I'll entertain this.

I am being open minded in the sense that I don't believe everything that is said to me. The funny thing both you and H.P. used to bash me on this on my previous posts (in regards to my thoughts about why we went to war). You both bashed me on the validity of things I called facts. I was wrong, you two were right. Now I'm questioning something, the roles are reversed, and you two bash me again. Again I can call you a hypocrate Rev. This is getting boring. Your "tin-foil" hat is slipping.

"You however, presume everyone guilty until proven innocent. You are NOT open minded. Even when provided with evidence, you want more. It is never enough. Even the evidence provided needs evidence to support it." - LOL You are accusing me of "It is never enough?" Maybe it's gonna take someone slamming your face into a mirror for you to realize how much of a hypocrate you are.

"Even the evidence provided needs evidence to support it" - I never said that. I said this document is not enough for me. This wouldn't probably would not even stand up in our own court system. It would take the supreme court to pass this one and everyone knows they go by their own rules.

"Ever work for the government? It's a commonthing NOT to do. I'm not talking Joe Schmoe contractor working as a receptionist or lackey writing code for their time-clock software. " - I do work for the government. And it's still a common thing to do. Nothing is valid here WITHOUT someone's name backing it.

"Government workers who have a bit of power or authority, or are rivy to sensitive documents and could be jeapordizing themselves or their relatives if they were to be named. " - Somewhere in the chain of command someone, who isn't undercover and is credible, needs to back this. You cannot tell me that in the entire CIA, FBI, or whatever agency the unnamed government workers works for there is not a person to back this.

I am being open minded in the sense that I don't believe everything that is said to me.

We must be using different versions of the dictionary. Open vs. closed. Since you aren't open to what others are saying because it id different than your opinion you are close minded. Period.

The funny thing both you and H.P. used to bash me on this on my previous posts (in regards to my thoughts about why we went to war).

I wasn't bashing you. I was simply stating that you were not being open minded. You want proof for the proof for the proof.

You both bashed me on the validity of things I called facts. I was wrong, you two were right. Now I'm questioning something, the roles are reversed, and you two bash me again. Again I can call you a hypocrate Rev. This is getting boring. Your "tin-foil" hat is slipping.

I'm not questioning either validity or facts. I'm just pointing out you aren't as open minded as you claim. It doesn't appear that you are questioning anything. You are simply refusing to accept that this information could be true. Again, you are asking for proof of the proof, of the proof before you will even consider it.

The roles are not reversed. Evidence has been provided. Until proven it is a plant, or inaccurate, or just plain bullshit, it is admissable. These aren't facts being questioned. I'm not arguing about the documents or the stance you are taking. So you may not want to lump me in there with HP. I was simply pointing out what I consider an error ony our part by stating you are open minded when it can be shown you are not.

So, you should look up the term hypocrite. You are again misapplying it. I firmly believe in the things I say. I am not professing a false belief.

Onward...

LOL You are accusing me of "It is never enough?" Maybe it's gonna take someone slamming your face into a mirror for you to realize how much of a hypocrate you are.

And that is supposed to be some sort of rebuttal to a point being made? Face it, you can't thus have to resort to an attack. It's ok, I can understand your frustration. You are incapable of worming your way out of your own logic traps.

Again, look up the term. If someone can provide me with proof of something they consider a counter to something I profess that's fine and dandy. However if I'm able to provide evidence it sort of nullifies theirs. So we will be back at square one. No problem, just find more evidence that cannot eb refuted. Appeals to authority don't cut it.

There is a document "in hand" pointing out the possible ties. You don't have anything to counter it with at the time. You just say you won't believe it.

If you claim to have evidence or claim that you can counter something I have said using scientific method feel free to do so. However DO IT. Don't just say it and not back it up.

Onward...

I never said that. I said this document is not enough for me. This wouldn't probably would not even stand up in our own court system. It would take the supreme court to pass this one and everyone knows they go by their own rules.

You don't have to say it implicitly. You have implied it through your dismissal of the document. you want evidence to support the evidence.

How won't it stand up in court? It is a document stating what they were doing and when. What charges are you trying to apply that the document won't hold up against? A statement like the one you made about not holding up in court is pretty broad. Something you should learn for future court battles; a little thing is called "casual connection."

It definitely IS enough to get the minds of the people looking at the evidence working.

Your statement regarding the Supreme Court is pure opinion and you don't have a leg to stand on there. Your opinion of the law doesn't need to be the same as their pinion of the law for it to be accurate. THEY are the FINAL arbiters of the LAW. Don't like the law? Talk to your senator and have it changed.

But I digress...

I do work for the government. And it's still a common thing to do. Nothing is valid here WITHOUT someone's name backing it.

And what is it you do? Remember I mentioned non-civilian jobs. None of that contractor crap. I'm talking about people of authority who can't afford to have their names thrown about in public. OPSEC. PERSEC. Internal documents may have names on them but confidential materials are supposed to remain confidential. They put their name on it because they belieev their name will remain in safe keeping.

People talking to reporters don't give names unless they are public relations. Giving info that could be considered detrimental and thus lose their job over it would be one reason to keep their names out of it and second people who have some authority that is giving non-sensitive material are still in jeopardy if they are made known to the public.

I know you aren't that stupid. So on we go...

Somewhere in the chain of command someone, who isn't undercover and is credible, needs to back this. You cannot tell me that in the entire CIA, FBI, or whatever agency the unnamed government workers works for there is not a person to back this.

Those names also stay confidential. People who LEAK info won't give their names because they will lose their jobs or worse. If this document is true and accurate and verifiable, someone may in fact give their name and qualify it for you. Maybe not.

It is sort of hard to back something that isn't supposed to be in the public's hands at this time. I can imagine they are scrambling to figure out what the hell is going on rather than look for a name to attach to it right now. When it's time for an official announcement (either verifying or denying the document) to be made you'll get your name.

Freed mind but a closed one.

What does what I said months ago have to do with an honest opinion today? My opinion is unbiased in relation to my thoughts on why we went to war.

Your opinions are unbiased? *blink* I won't call you a liar because you may actually believe that but from where others stand, it doesn't appear that you are unbiased.

If anyone is biased it is you...all hail the republicans!

Actually, you lumped me in there as well with HP when you went off on your rant. You ignored the actual point I was making because your bias led you to believe I was jumping on HP's bandwagon when I wasn't. Pull your pants up, your bias is showing ;)

I brought Bush up in my original post to this thread because, in my eyes, his administration will benefit the most from this in light of the upcoming election. That has nothing to do with my previous posts. Nice try though.

Sure it does. It is your bias talking. Does it really matter who will "benefit" from this? It is a document that links specific parties. People are screaming for justification. They will get it. Of course they'll scream about the justification they get but whatever, that's their bias whining.

What I got from this was both Iraq and Osama were helping out Syria. Does this connect them? Yes, but indirectly. The document says "collaborators", but what are they collaborating in?

And what does it matter how "indirectly" it connects them? They were still connected. This is just helping to establish the fact that they WERE connected. The whining libs are the ones who are saying there wasn't a connection. They have proof. Well whine about the proof. Ok give them more proof, well, they have to whine more about the proof of the proof given...

What do I want? Photographs, financial transactions, weapons transactions, physical evidence that directly ties them together. Something that shows their collaboration is a threat to the world's security. You know, the same evidence that would stand up in our own court system.

And if you are provided the requested photographs... say Osama and Saddam standing at a map fo the world with a big red x across the USA, what then? You'll whine that it wasn't provided by a tree hugging liberal panty wearing hippy so of course the source isn't credible. Evidence to prove the evidence is accurate... here we go again...

We don't need anything to show they are a threat to the world. Saddam has proven in the past he has been a threat to other countries. Osama has shown to be a threat to the USA, and recently Spain. Gee, I gues it's only some of the world so they are a fully global threat. Ok, lets let them have their way with us. What do they want, doggy style or pig-dog style, or perhaps camel style?

For fuck's sake, the documents show a connection. They don't need to show that the two conspired to attack us on 9/11. That isn't what we're looking for. We never were looking for that. We were however looking for a connection between the two and that has been made. Saddam was a bad man and was connected with Osama in some way.

So, what's your point? That has nothing to do with the validity of the document. Do you think CBS WOULDN'T come out with this because they don't like him?

Uhm the point is, when it comes from media sources that happen to be conservative or "pro bush" the libs and dems whine about it being unreliable. Thus when it comes from one of the other sources who are biased against Bush it removes the caterwauling that would normally ensue about unreliable sources.

And yes I believe that if the libs claims that the specific media outlets are controlled by the administration, then the ones opposed to him would keep the info private so as to not support the man they dislike. It's the liberal's logic being used against them.

Swoosh!

Have a nice day tardboy.

Sorry if I stepped ony our toes replying to this one HP. I just felt the need to point out the glaring logic errors.

If you'd rather i stayed out of it I will.

As far as the free mind statement, I will say that you don't have a mind any "freer" than most.

Each person has what is described as "Affective Bias", in other words, a bias based on emotion. In your case, you were against the war based upon the evidence you chose to listen to, while many supported it based upon the evidence they chose to listen to.

The problem is that this bias creates what are known as information screens, which would prevent you from accepting or looking at information that may challenge your way of thinking. When confronted with it, you will minimize it for other evidence that fits in more neatly with your perception of things.

OK, so now I think I'm slipping into Cognitive Dissonance, but I digress...

I, personally, think the document is very interesting. Most interesting of all is that the government appears to be saying very, very little about it. Why is that? Is it because it is of dubious origin, or is it for some other reason?

I won't lie, though. I support the war and Bush in general, which does make me biased. But, I do try to look at things from a more analytic point of view. You are doing some analyzing for one side (pointing out all of the reasons it could be false) but without doing any analysis of the other side (looking at the many reasons it could be true).

Might I suggest taking a look at both?

You seem to think I am completely unwilling to accept the validity of this document. I am willing to accept it, but I do need more. I do need someone to back it up. I do need more information other than just collaborator. It doesn't matter of my bias to GWB, I would question this document in any situation.

Am I not open-minded for questioning something? Am I not allowed to acknowledge something, judge it validity, and later accept it if there is enough evidence? You seem to think I must accept everything right away in order to be open minded. I do not. I do need to acknowledge something as possibly being true. I never said this document was real/false, I only said I did not see enough evidence for to be able to say, myself, that it is true.

You, HP, and Chepibe seem to think I am biased towards my feelings of this document based on my feelings towards the Bush and the War. Honestly I am not. I will say I am biased though in some respect. My biases come from my education, my experience working for the police, my experiences in court, and my experiences working for the government. I apologize if it seems that I am being biased towards Bush, but I am not. You, HP, and Chepibe are biased in favor of Bush. Could your biases be masking your opinion of me?

Hey we actually agree on something. I'm floored.

If you have any suggestions on how I look at the other side, please state them. I would love to have good evidence that would clear the name of GWB and my country of any wrongdoing. I have not been show any yet (this document may turn out to be, but right now I only acknowledge it and I do not accept it.

My opinion is based upon my knowledge of this matter (just the document), my values, and my experience. Please don't think it's based on Bush. I agree with what you say about the way the brain works, but I do not feel I am doing this. I would scrutinize this document no matter who benefited from it.

Since when did you take any education in logic? I didn't know logic 101 was taught in mall security. I'm really interested in where you learned this one:

I think I am right, thus I am right and everyone else is wrong and are all fucktards.

Please show my "glaring logic errors." Also, use actual logic and not any of YOUR opinions. Can you do that? No? Good, I didn't think so.

Also note the question and hypothetical answer before the "good". That is the correct way to use good in a sarcastic manner. Your previous attempt was pathetic. [link]

You may agree with what he wrote. Does he agree with all that you wrote?

My bad.

You seem to think I am completely unwilling to accept the validity of this document. I am willing to accept it, but I do need more.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement I just quoted? Please say you do. Just for safety sake I'll point it out that way I don't have to hit reply again.

Willing to accept it but needing more. There is no but. Either you accept it or you don't. If you need more, then you are not accepting it as it stands.

I do need someone to back it up. I do need more information other than just collaborator.

Who would be acceptable in your mind to back it up? If Dubya did, would you accept it? What other information do you need in regards to collaboration? Don't you think if we had more specific details they would provide it? The only thing they were trying to establish was a connection. Seems that connection was established. If they prove this document false than thats fine too. What are YOU looking for in regards to collaboration?

Using your favorite example of court: What court case are you trying? Decide the case and perhaps they can find the info you request. A connection regardless of how benign you may think it is, is still a connection.

Am I not open-minded for questioning something? Am I not allowed to acknowledge something, judge it validity, and later accept it if there is enough evidence? You seem to think I must accept everything right away in order to be open minded. I do not. I do need to acknowledge something as possibly being true. I never said this document was real/false, I only said I did not see enough evidence for to be able to say, myself, that it is true.

Of course not. however you are disregarding it unless someone comes up with more evidence that suits you. That is pretty close minded. It appears that you are being close minded in regards to this.

I don't think you have to accept everything right away, but I do think you shouldn't toss it out because it isn't ENOUGH for you. Keep it on the table is all I'm saying. While you may be saying for yourself you can't say it is true, what you are telling everyone else is that it is false.

This comes across (to me at least) as if you have already made the decision and thus are close minded because evidence has been brought forth but it is never enough. Because of your personal bias, no one will ever be able to provide "enough" to suit you.

You, HP, and Chepibe seem to think I am biased towards my feelings of this document based on my feelings towards the Bush and the War.

But you are. Everything you do or say is biased towards your feelings and belief. This goes for everyone else as well. However, some folks are able to get past that and at least look at the other side of things when evidence DOES present itself.

It would be different if someone was saying there was a connection and there were no documents but people were saying there was a connection, and there is a document to support it. By disallowing this evidence to be submitted you are letting your bias interfere with your decision making.

Now if no one provided a document and just told you they KNEW the truth and you would have to take their word for it or that they COULD provide the information but refused because it wasn't worth their time then yes, I could say you were in the right to disregard what they were saying and tell them to take a flying leap.

Honestly I am not.

I'm sure you really believe that. However a lot of times we annot see our own shortcomings. I know hat my shortcomings are. Lack of patience, and failing to ignore trolls, among others. But I try and get past it. Whenit comes to debates I'll accept any actual hard evidence put forth. I will disregard appeasl to authority or other logic fallacies and I expect you would as well.

My biases come from my education, my experience working for the police, my experiences in court, and my experiences working for the government.

That sounds pretty condenscending. almost like you are trying to imply that no one else is educated or have working experience etc. I submit your bias is an emotional and political one. If it wasn't you would be able to accept evidence as it was presented and disregard any that is proven false.

I apologize if it seems that I am being biased towards Bush, but I am not. You, HP, and Chepibe are biased in favor of Bush. Could your biases be masking your opinion of me?

You got it wrong there bub. I'm actually not in favor of Bush. I think he fucked up a lot. I'm just looking at the connection between Saddam and Osama and/or any other terrorist there is out there causing trouble. The documents could be coming from democrats in a manner used to show that the president knew in advance of the attacks and did nothing. However, I'm only looking for facts not political slander or favoritism.

If my bias got in the way of how I saw things in regards to you, you could bet I'd just be flinging insults rather than making points.

You got defensive when I was pointing out bias and started throwing me in with the Bush lovers. The defensiveness blinded you to what I was actually saying. You wanted to lash out and attack for whatever reason claiming an "open mind" the whole while.

Is any of this getting through now? Maybe this is just another one of those times where we just communicate differently which is why you took what I was saying the way you did. Maybe not.

Thank you for proving my point.

You are just being a defensive git. You refuse to be open minded and learn.

Well done fucktard. I counted a few logic errors in there. Notably there was the red herring and the ad hominem.

As for your reference to the sarcasm of "good," there wasn't any in the link you provided. I wasn't being sarcastic. I was stating that it was good and to STFU. Pretty good idea now since you have obviously lost it.

link]" border="0">

Fucking dumbass.

I'm sorry you feel so hurt because someone was pointing out your flaws and others were also doing the same.

link]" border="0">

I was done with this one anyways. No point in debating an ideologue.

My apologies for lumping you in with the Bush lovers. I thought from arguments in the past that you were. Again my apologies for my error.

I'm not going argue about this anymore. Not because I have lost any debate, but there is now way that I can prove to you that my opinion is unbiased. That is what we are arguing about right? Something completely off topic again.

I find it sad that you believe that I or anyone else cannot make an unbiased opinion. You can go and say that everything we do is biased, and in some cases I agree. I have my experiences that affect my decisions. Do I let my feelings bias my decisions, sometimes, when it comes to certain things. Not this one though.

"You seem to think I am completely unwilling to accept the validity of this document. I am willing to accept it, but I do need more.

Do you see the contradiction in your statement I just quoted? Please say you do. Just for safety sake I'll point it out that way I don't have to hit reply again. " - How is that a contradiction? I said I acknowledged it, but I did not accept it. Again, you are saying that I must accept it in order to be open minded. I disagree. I have tabled this, but right now I don't accept it, I only acknowledge it.

I got the coffee picture? Sweet...I've been waiting for that one. What arguement did I prove? "I refuse to be open minded and learn" Again I'm LOL. Since when have you gone by that standard? Hypocrate. And I didn't prove jack shit. I trolled on something completely off topic. Did I troll? Yup. Does that prove I'm close minded? Maybe in your world. Am I being defensive? Yup. I being told that I am not being logic in my decisions and I'm making biased opinions based on my feelings to GWB. Wouldn't you be defensive in this case?

"Notably there was the red herring and the ad hominem. " - Again please point them out, that was just your opinion.

"I was stating that it was good and to STFU. Pretty good idea now since you have obviously lost it. " Again, what was good rev?

Me good. Me wear warm clothes in warm weather. Me Rev. Me right. You wrong.

Don't be I'm not hurt. Just because the three of you think I'm being biased doesn't mean you are correct. It does raise the probability though.

I guess for you guys to agree with me I have to give up all my standards and just accept everything. When I said before that I have worked for the police/courts and the government I wasn't trying to sound better than you. I was trying to say that that experience makes me more reluctant to accept things like this news article.

Nice pic. Can I use it for you too?

You are a better man than I for walking away from arguments. Do you really think that I'm castle-building on this one? I apoligize for sounding biased, in regards to bush, in my opinion. I did not mean too.

Eh, where'd all the comments go?

Hmm buggy cache or code... interesting.

Indeed. After his last attempts at insulting I came to the conclusion he is just being defensive and can't handle being called on his issues.

I can't believe I was labled a Bush lover though. :( That makes Baby Jesus Cry :D

Keep arguing tardboy.

link]" border="0">

Everyone has a bias. Some people are able to overcome them but only to a degree.

This is one of the reasons people in power put folks they want on the supreme court team. Their bias helps them in some way. Yes it's off topic but I'm trying to point out that even the supreme authority on the LAW is biased.

As for the rest, I already pointed it out. I cannot explain it any more clearly. I'm glad you're finally done arguing. Simply put, "good."

I honestly don't believe Bin Laden and Saddam where in bed together, i mean both of them would of wanted to be on the right hand side, and that just wouldn't work.

Also it funny how this information is coming out on the run up to the elections, inside knowledge from over here i know that a certain Unit of Royal Marines are looking like their getting sent to Afgan to find bin laden. It is not usual that Royal Marines get sent in for this type of work so whether that states anything or not is upto you to decide.

But you can insult me if you disagree, quite like watching the verbal battering that goes on about the middle east.

Again nice pic. You should try making some yourself though.

I did insult H.P. though. My apologies HollowPoint.

As for you Rev., you deserve it.

"After his last attempts at insulting I came to the conclusion he is just being defensive and can't handle being called on his issues. " - Again you are consistently guilty of something you blame others for. I responded logically to your arguments. You didn't respond logically to mine. I began to insult you. You insulted me. Nothing was solved as always.

I'll give you a chance to prove me wrong. Prove that there is no way that I can have an unbiased opinion about this evidence in relation to Bush. There is no way you can so please acknowledge that I may have made a just decision. You don't have to accept it, just acknowledge that it could be just. Go ahead, I know you can, you are a free-thinker right?

It's off topic but I'd like to think that the supreme court is biased in only one way. That is in regards to our constitution and our current law. I have not seen in my lifetime a supreme court judge have another bias although I do think it is possible. That is why I said I do not think that this document would be admissable in court. They would definitelly need an expert to testify for its validity. I say that from my experience in court, you don't have to believe this.

Thank you for trying to explain things so clearly. I do not accept it though. I know how I made my decision.

Simply put, "good."