<!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>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>6) CNN? CNN?? You want me to search for a reasonable and
temperate assessment of ANYTHING Bush has done............. on
CNN???</DIV>
<DIV>You're pulling my leg on this one, aren't you, Nick? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>10) I take it that's a no?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>13) Well, I'm not comfortable trusting someone's notes.
Who took them and what was THEIR agenda?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>14) Crisp, perky, garden fresh intel, or cooked to a stagnant
mush? The jury is STILL out.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thank YOU for the dialog.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--Tony</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>