[Vision2020] Re: Why is Nick threatened by an inquiring mind?

[ToeKneeTime at aol.com]

Nick,
 
Your hostile and snotty response to my cordial e-mail requesting  
clarification is not the approach a fair minded and secure individual would  make.  Why 
are you so indignant that I would ask a few questions?  Do  you prefer to 
pontificate without the inconvenience of any dissent?  Your  mean spirited tone is 
unnecessary.  Take a chill pill.
 
Your response to my query regarding Atta in Prague was unattributed AGAIN  
and amounted to another of your gratuitous assertions.  As such, no  response is 
necessary.
 
Point 3)  We should trust the 911 commission and not the  administration, you 
say.  No support for this assertion either.  You  saying something from on 
high, Nick, don't make it so.  
 
4)  We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  I would like to  have the 
benefit of their perspective on this before accepting your conclusion  
wholesale.
 
5)  I must not "dis" the 911 commission and make a fool of myself, you  
admonish.  There were REPUBLICANS on that commission!  You chortle as  though any 
of us were unaware of the bipartisan nature of this group.  I  simply suggested 
to you that no commission is infallible and its failure to  confirm some or 
another charge, does not necessarily put the matter to  rest.
 
I noted at this point in your response you seemed a bit overwrought.   I hope 
your anger and frustration have abated and you are now more receptive to  a 
few more questions, but OOPS, you aren't speaking to me.
 
6)  CNN?  CNN??  You want me to search for a reasonable and  temperate 
assessment of ANYTHING Bush has done.............   on  CNN???
You're pulling my leg on this one, aren't you, Nick?   
 
7)  You basically say, Oh no, man!  There were Lots of documents  and they 
looked 'em over real good.    That may be so, but how  does it address my 
questions to you regarding potential alternative fates that  may have befallen 
incriminating documents?
  A "discredited administration"?  Not by YOU.  Not  effectively.  And the 
president mentally slow?  C'mon Nick, you may  not like the man, you may even 
hate him, but he didn't get to where he is by  being a half wit.
 
8)  But what of the interim period between the first team's  dismantling of 
Saddam's nuclear program and the second team's  arrival?  Could not the 
evidence have been disposed of or moved, or  yet to be discovered somewhere in that 
huge expanse of sand?
 
9)  NO ONE IS NOW SAYING THAT THESE ALUMINUM TUBES WERE FIT FOR THE  
ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM, you advise.  That's terrific Nick, but we're  talking about 
THEN, not NOW.  Good to see that your hindsight is  20/20 though.
 
10)  I take it that's a no?
 
11)  I understand your point Nick, I just don't necessarily share your  
aversion to domestic intel gathering.  And of course you are aware that no  
president could conduct ANY covert activity if he blithely announced to the  world, 
the nature of his actions.
 
12)  ONE PIECE of evidence provided to congress prior to its  resounding 
support of the use of force?  Those consulted were no doubt  provided with more 
than just that.
 
13)  Well, I'm not comfortable trusting someone's notes.   Who took them and 
what was THEIR agenda?
 
14)  Crisp, perky, garden fresh intel, or cooked to a stagnant  mush?   The 
jury is STILL out.
 
Thank YOU for the dialog.
 
--Tony
 
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060430/56fe0d36/attachment.htm