I only partially understand why Moussaoui's trial needs to be handled in this way...I posted on it the other day...

Strange Culture: Proving Pain over 9-11

and I'd be curious to know what you think.

--RC of strangeculture.blogspot.com

Hey Randy,I thought you might wanna check this out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12275328/
Its about the mobile labs that were found and hailed as proof of Saddams mobile weapons labs.Remember the compulsive liar 'Curveball' whom US intelligence based much of the wars causus belli on?Well it turns out that it has been known for a couple years now that those las were nothing more than hydrogen labs for weather balloons and the administration classified it and shelved it to save themselves some embarassment.Too bad word gets around.I sure hope it wasn't an illegal leak.Enjoy.

Also this:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Report_Powell_hits_Cheney_on_manupulation_0412.html
It seems even Colin Powell just recently stated that he never believed Iraq was a threat.

rob I suggest getting past the headlines and actually finding out what happened. This is just one of the bigger non-stories being spun by the liberal media this week... the CIA and DIA, a day after the report that said they weren't mobile WMD labs, insisted that they were in their own reports... It was months later that it was determined that they weren't. There was nothing sneaky going on here, just trusting intel that was apparently wrong... but wasn't determined to be so until much later. This is just ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as Prosecuter Fitzgerald having to change inaccurate quotes and the media running wild with the original story, but snoring through the correction.

rob, thanks for linking to some left-wing site that has spins the quotes of Powell to fit a "Powell said no WMDs" agenda... Come on dude, I don't have time to make posts if I have to be the one to read past the headlines of all your articles... First off, there is a lot of Wilson worship in there that discredits the "points"... Wilson was a proven liar, Cheney's office didn't select him for the trip, and calling Bush a liar because Iraq didn't buy Uranium from Niger was a lie itself because Bush never claimed that Iraq did. He cited British intelligence that they and the former PM of Niger stand by! Wilson by his own words didn't do crap in Niger.... oh whatever, why are we going in this circle again... the point is Powell and everyone can say that "it was a mistake" to have the "16 words" in the SOTU speech, but I'm not sure why.

So please let me know what spinning has happened when this is said.
On Monday, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said that he and his department's top experts never believed that Iraq posed an imminent nuclear threat, but that the president followed the misleading advice of Vice President Dick Cheney and the CIA in making the claim.
"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it."
Bush said on May 29,2003 that 'we have found the weapons of mass destruction' when on May 27,2003 the pentagon released to Washington its accounts of a fact finding mission from a team of specialists from the US and Britian that they did not know what the nature of the trailers were for but they were categorically not for Chemical or Biological weapons.Seems the president lets slip a lot of snafus even when he has the credible intelligence saying just the opposite at his disposal.For nearly a year after they were deemed anything but mobile weapons labs I remember Cheney parading around the idea that they may have been used for the production of anthrax,mustard gas,bottullism (enter something really scary here)even when he KNEW they were not.Why was the report findings on the true nature of these 'mobile weapons labs'(to create hydrogen for weather balloons) classified?As for you saying Powell and everyone can say that it was a mistake to have the sixteen words in the speech is not enough.He said he didnt buy it then at all.Oh what a web we weave when we lie and decieve.

Iraq already had 250 tons of uranium oxide.Why would they need to purchase anymore?And yes the whole world knew about this stockpile.Wouldnt it have been easier to fabricate a story around what they already have versus some fiction?D'oh!

Okay, your long comment is very confusing because I can't tell where some of it came from... whether it's copied, or your words, or what... but for starters with the latest bogus "we caught Bush lying" campaign, check out my latest post (which actually links to real articles, not far left columns). http://www.rightwinged.com/2006/04/media_tries_and_fails_to_make.html

Now as for "what is spin" about the Powell stuff... Um, how about the fact that you said, in the comment with the link:

It seems even Colin Powell just recently stated that he never believed Iraq was a threat.

Uh, actually the left-wing column you link to is off handed comments about NUCLEAR threat. Not "a threat".. So that was YOUR spin. The "raw story" page used the headline:

"Report: Powell says Bush took 'misleading' Cheney advice, ignored State Department "

Why is that spin you ask? Only because if you actually read what Powell said, he said that Cheney took the CIA was saying over what the state department was saying. In other words, he took intelligence information from an intelligence gathering organization, over the words of a non-intelligence gathering organization. I swear some days you come off like a KOS kid Rob and it's really frustrating, because other times you seem like you're capable of independant thoughts and aren't this out there.

Anyway, even if I was to indulge you on the "nuclear threat" part, it's bogus on it's face because I don't believe we argued that Iraq was a nuclear threat did we? I mean Kerry said this in January of 2003:

“If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.”

But I don't believe anyyone claimed that Saddam had nukes and was making the bomb.

As for your comments on what would be an easier story to fabricate... That only lends itself to the idea that no one was trying to fabricate the story or else they would have. Like I tell 9/11 conspiracy theorists.. if somehow Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld pulled off 9/11, even though it would require thousands of people's involvement, wouldn't they have made the towers fall in a much less "controlled" style to avoid the questions? I mean such an elaborate plan and they forgot something like that? Likewise, since these people claim 9/11 was staged to go to war with Iraq, wouldn't you think they could pull off something as small as planting anthrax or something?

Likewise, don't you think the President (oh I forgot, he's too dumb) or at least his handlers (Rove, etc.) have realized the political fallout when WMDs weren't found if they were knowingly lying? Seriously, do you libs never consider that? I mean you've seen what has happened to him, do you really think that if they were knowingly lying they couldn't have forseen all of this (rock bottom approval, etc.)?

Anyway, it really doesn't matter... Bush didn't have to fabricate anything, I've repeatedly given you the FactCheck article that proves the President was correct because he cited British intel that they stand by, as does the former PM of Niger. That's all irrelevant to any of this though.

Whatever, I did my job, I explained the spin that I can't believe you honestly missed. And if I really wanted to, I can actually call your initial comment about Powell a lie.