<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2873" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>Nick,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Re: Atta in Prague, What American intelligence agencies?
And do you have proof that Cheney was specifically aware of this determination
prior to making his assertions?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>second point: Did Bush/Cheney not have other intel sources advising
them otherwise? Could you provide dated quotes from either man, post
commission report?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Point 3: How do you know that Saddam's government didn't respond to
Bin Laden's request? That doesn't sound like the sort of dialog one might
engage in openly.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>4) Are you saying that this 2002 team of inspectors was IN Iraq,
freely conducting their mission, when Bush made his July declaration?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>5) I assume you meant to refer to the 911 commission? If so, so
what? The fact that some bureaucratic commission failed to confirm
it, does not prove that the alleged meeting Bush referred to did not take
place.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>6) When and where did Bush/ Cheney make these assertions after
Rummy's declaration?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>6) Cheney should have known "full well" that Zarqawi was not then in
Iraq. Why? Why are you surprised that captured documents failed to
confirm a connection to Baghdad Is it not possible that certain
documentation was either destroyed or never existed at all? The absence of
proof does not disprove.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>7) Why is Bush automatically presumed wrong, while the Atomic
Energy Association is presumed right? Could you site dated examples
of specific statements made regarding Iraq's supposed nuclear
capabilities?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>8) "that they could find......." Well that
gives one pause. Can you understand how, given Iraq's history of
nuclear production to which you refer, this administration and congress might
regard reports of continued activity as requiring action? Did congress, by
authorizing the use of force, not second the administration's concerns? Is
it fair to laboriously heap all this blame at Bush's feet?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>9) "most likely....." Again that nasty
pause. And what experts? Isn't it possible that Bush may have
been advised otherwise by other experts? Perhaps a consensus was arrived
at after consulting several...... who knows for certain?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>10) Is David Albright a nuclear scientist? How is he
specifically qualified to make such a determination?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>11) I don't know that I find the potential for a brief and
necessary tap on my phone line to be unreasonable in a post
911 environment. I trust that these folks will by and large
direct their curiosities toward appropriate targets. How can we demand
protection from our government when we deny it the sometimes gritty tools it may
need to deal with murderous sociopaths.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>12) Not necessarily a contradiction. The administration
couldn't provide ALL it's intel re: Iraq to the congress. Yet what WAS
provided did lead to a consensus in favor of action.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>13) Memo from where? And how was this meeting "secret" if it
was detailed in a lengthy memo?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>14) Did the administration "cook" the intel on Iraq? The jury
is still out. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Best, --Tony</DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>