Let me put it to you another way.
Another reason I question your motivation and credibility is because you say you were an intelligence analyst. As such, you should understand the concept of studying the status and distribution of an enemy's forces, past behaviors, doctrine, etc, to predict future behavior. As a metaphor, in this case you have satellite photos of his forces, communication intercepts verifying the situation, humint on the ground saying what the forces are doing, etc. You also have reports from the front gained from troops in contact.
And yet you're willing to ignore every indicator on the planet because Baghdad Bob says the Americans are nowhere near Baghdad.
If you're an indicator of the level of analysis our intel people use, it's no wonder we got the WMD assessment wrong in Iraq.