<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16414" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Gary writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"Having flexible standards must come
in handy for you, as we have all observed many times here on this
forum."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And examples/post giving evidence for this
statement are?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 5:03 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath
inthematter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne, as I said before I really don't care if
the back and forth between us is public of not. I was responding to an e-mail
that you sent to me privately and not to the V as a whole therefore I
responded in kind. As someone who has had to listen to loud and lengthy
castigation on this subject ( with yourself being one of my most
impassioned detractors) I try to be somewhat sensitive to it. Rest assured
I'll not be utilizing your personnel mailbox any time soon. I am,
however, in awe of your pliability when it comes to matters such
as this. The transgressions of your own, you dismiss with the stroke of a key
while calling for blood when observed in others. Having flexible standards must
come in handy for you, as we have all observed many times here on this
forum.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:18
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they
will not testify under oath inthematter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gary writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"2. I can accept that
the current administration used the intelligence that it had available at
the time to make decisions about invading Iraq. When you attempt to put your
own personnel spin on it by using terms such as "grossly in error" I'm afraid
I must disagree. No intelligence is perfect except in
retrospect."</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Let's see. In
addition to:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>...the bi-partisan
senate committee report which concludes after months of investigations and
testimony from all sides of the issue:
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>"that there was no prewar evidence that
Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that
Saddam had links to al-Qaeda."</FONT></STRONG> </DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>There was that
prophetic statement:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>"The Iraqis will
welcome the U.S. military with open arms, throwing flowers at them when they
parade through Baghdad!"</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Those flowers have
killed over 3,000 fellow Americans and wounded more than 25,000
others.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3><STRONG>Here's where
we agree:</STRONG> Intelligence is not perfect. If you have read
the material I referred to, you will know that in the case of Iraq, the
intelligence wasn't even in the ballpark of being poor. Many
intelligences sources are salespersons selling things that the buyers want to
hear rather than true, e.g. Chalabi, whose latest spiel from yesterday you
will be delighted to read <A
href="http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16944011.htm">http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16944011.htm</A> or
any other news service of your choice.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3><STRONG>Where we don't
agree is</STRONG> that the errors noted above were not gross errors.
Perhaps if you Googled <FONT color=#0000ff>"intelligence gross errors
Iraq"</FONT> [842,000 hits] you might find among the articles
evidence that I am not the only one who has characterized the
intelligence as grossly erroneous or something similar; you might even find
some well known conservatives. If you really are arguing that such
miscalculations were not gross errors, perhaps you missed the following
earlier in the week:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>
<H1 class=firstHeading>Persuasive definition</H1>
<H3 id=siteSub>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</H3>
<DIV id=contentSub></DIV>
<DIV id=jump-to-nav>Jump to: <A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition#column-one">navigation</A>,
<A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition#searchInput">search</A></DIV><!-- start content -->
<P>A <B>persuasive definition</B> is a form of <A title=Definition
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition">definition</A> which purports
to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in
reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument
for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. The terms thus
defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as
"freedom", "terrorism", "democracy" etc.</P>
<P>An example is the definition of the term "<A title="Date rape"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Date_rape">date rape</A>" as "sex with an
intoxicated person after a party". The extremely negatively charged term
"rape", typically used for sex without consent, sometimes even enforced by
physical violence, is used here to increase the condemnation of the described
behavior. The definition of "<A title="Software piracy"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_piracy">software piracy</A>" as
the act of infringing the copyrights of computer programs is another
example.</P>
<P>Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as <A
title=Politics href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics">politics</A>, <A
title=Sex href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex">sex</A>, and <A
title=Religion href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion">religion</A>, as
participants in emotionally-charged exchanges will sometimes become more
concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the
unbiased facts.</P>
<P>The term "persuasive definition" was introduced by philosopher <A
title="Charles Stevenson"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Stevenson">C.L. Stevenson</A> as
part of his emotive theory of meaning.</P>
<P><A id=References name=References></A></P>
<H2><SPAN class=editsection>[<A title="Edit section: References"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persuasive_definition&action=edit&section=1">edit</A>]</SPAN>
<SPAN class=mw-headline>References</SPAN></H2>
<DIV>
<UL>
<LI>Stevensen, C.L. "Persuasive Definitions." <I><A title="Mind (journal)"
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_%28journal%29">Mind</A></I> Vol. 47,
No. 187. (July 1938), pp. 331-350
<LI>Stevenson, C.L., <I>Ethics and Language</I>, Connecticut
1944</LI></UL></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is not worth my time to Google for you all the references including
some from congressional reports and even from the DOD itself claiming
that the pre-Iraq-War intelligence was cooked to provide justification
for invading Iraq. Nothing, even a statement from Bill O'Reilly
himself, could convince you.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I am sorry that I outed your "private message." But I didn't notice
that it was private since it was not marked that way. If you ever wish
to send me a private message that I cannot accidentally post, you may send it
to <A href="mailto:waf@moscow.com">waf@moscow.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:17 AM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath
inthematter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. Could you make up your mind whether you want
to have this discussion 'mano a mano' or in front of your buddies on the V. It
won't effect the ultimate outcome but it will influence the levels of
familiarity used.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. I can accept that the current
administration used the intelligence that it had available at the time to make
decisions about invading Iraq. When you attempt to put your own personnel spin
on it by using terms such as "grossly in error" I'm afraid I must disagree. No
intelligence is perfect except in retrospect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. As I stated in my previous post, sent to you
privately and included by you below, you really have to knock it off with the
creepy 'take my hand and I'll lead you down the garden path' routine. You've
overworked it to the point exhaustion. I know I'm more than a little tired of
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>4. If the conclusion that you're referring to was
the one referencing the three P's I'm thinking that you don't guess worth a
damn. On the off chance that I'm wrong and the folks being subject to this
silly discussion wish to think me a dolt, so be it. My self-worth isn't
wrapped up in what you or our unseen audience has as an opinion of my
viewpoints. I would however like to hear from them and know where they think
I'm in error. It would be a welcome change to get input on this topic from
people that I might respect.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:02
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they
will not testify under oath inthematter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I wrote:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"The first step is to show that the pre-war WMD and
.related intelligence gathered and edited by and relied upon by the Bush
Administration to persuade congress to endorse invading Iraq was grossly in
error.</FONT>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>If you can accept that, we can move to the next
step. If not, then readers can draw their own
conclusions."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I based the first sentence in part on the bi-partisan senate committee
report which concludes after months of investigations and testimony from all
sides of the issue:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#ff0000>"that there was no prewar evidence that
Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence
that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda."</FONT></STRONG>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Gary's cogent, germane response is:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"That you're peevish, pompous,
and pedantic is the conclusion that I'm drawing.""</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>I am left to
conclude among other things that you and Pat Kraut must have the same secret
sources of information, though perhaps chimerical, that are denied to the
rest of us, that you share similar ratiocination processes, and that when
faced with high probabilities antithetical to your cherished views, your
reaction is to attempt to be cute. I would not characterize such
attempts as successful on your part, although Pat sometimes can be
charmingly amusing with her attempts.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana
size=3><STRONG></STRONG></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3><STRONG>If you are
unwilling to admit even to yourself that there were huge pre-Iraq-war
intelligence problems, then:</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>1. We cannot
proceed to the next step in this discussion which is to examine whether
pressure was applied by high level officials in the Bush administration to
shape intelligence to justify going to war, and thus in part causing
the intelligence failures. After that point we can move a bit
further toward discussing Valerie Plame and the good soldier
Scooter.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>2. Your
previous statement that <FONT color=#0000ff>"<FONT face=Arial size=2>Well
Wayne, this is becoming embarrassing" <FONT face=Verdana color=#000000
size=3>is clearly reflexively true.</FONT></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>3. Your
heroic, attempted defense and refusal to face high probabilities here is
symptomatic of and homomorphic to the Bush administration's myopic failure
to objectively evaluate evidence, explore thoroughly all viable
options, narrow-witted "They tried to kill my daddy" thinking, and failure
to put their egos aside in matters of grave national and international
consequence that got us and the rest of the world into the current Iraq
debacle with all its horrors, pain, death, colossal ineptitude, and other
long lasting, very tragic consequences.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>4. Repeating
my earlier comment: <FONT color=#0000ff>"then readers can draw their
own conclusions." </FONT><FONT color=#000000>I'm guessing, although I
may be wrong, that they will be different in the majority and even
among some of your very conservative allies than the one you drew quoted
above.</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>W.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A>
</DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:10 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under
oath inthematter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Florence,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That you're peevish, pompous, and pedantic is
the conclusion that I'm drawing. Feel free to take all the small steps you
want, they seem to be taking you round in little tight circles. Why don't
you just get used to the fact that nobody's taking a fall in this teapot
tempest, not even Mr. Libby and move on, fella. While your at it why don't
you knock off the creepy 'let me take you by the hand' shtick. You've run it
into the dirt as of a couple years ago. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=jampot@adelphia.net
href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g. crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:42
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they
will not testify under oath inthematter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Gary writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>"For starters why would I
consider any thing from wikipedia to be the final word on
anything?"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Wikipedia is not the final word. However, it would be
interesting if you could produce evidence showing that the article cited
contains anything false in its summary of the reports at issue.
</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Here are two relevant quotes from the wikipedia article. Do you
have any evidence that the material in these quotes does not reflect what
was in the senate committee's reports?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=mw-headline><STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff>Niger and the
Iraqi nuclear program</FONT></STRONG></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>Section II of the report discussed the handling of
intelligence indicating that Iraq might be attempting to purchase uranium
from Niger. The report examined the role played by former ambassador
Joseph Wilson in investigating the issue, and the way Wilson's assessment
was communicated within the intelligence community. It also discusses the
process whereby references to Iraq's uranium-procurement efforts were
removed from some speeches at the behest of intelligence officials, but
left in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The report
concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the
intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain
uranium from Africa.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>Section III of the report discusses assessments of
Iraq's domestic nuclear program. It focuses a significant amount of
attention on the intelligence process that took place in the spring of
2001 regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase 60,000 high-strength aluminum
tubes. The CIA concluded that the tubes could be intended for constructing
centrifuges for a uranium-enrichment program (i.e., for a restarted Iraqi
nuclear weapons program); analysts in the Department of Energy and the
Department of Defense considered that to be unlikely.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>The October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq appeared to
be reconsitituting its nuclear weapons program. <STRONG>The Committee's
report concluded that this view was not supported by the underlying
intelligence, and the report agreed with the opinion of the State
Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, expressed as an
"alternative view" in the NIE, that the available intelligence did not
make "a compelling case for reconstitution" of the Iraqi nuclear
program.</STRONG> The committee reached several conclusions critical of
poor communications between the CIA and other parts of the intelligence
community concerning this issue.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff>....</FONT></P>
<P><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </P></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>Two volumes of the phase II report were released
on September 8, 2006: "</FONT><A class="external text"
title=http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf
href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf"
rel=nofollow>Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to
Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments</A><FONT
color=#0000ff>" and "</FONT><A class="external text"
title=http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf
href="http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiinc.pdf" rel=nofollow>The Use
by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi
National Congress</A><FONT color=#0000ff>." </FONT><FONT
color=#ff0000><STRONG>The conclusions of these reports were that there was
no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction
and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to
al-Qaeda.</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You complain that there is not mention of Valerie Plame here.
You are correct. Having noticed your capacity before, I am going in
small steps. The first step is to show that the pre-war WMD and
related intelligence gathered and edited by and relied upon by the Bush
Administration to persuade congress to endorse invading Iraq was grossly
in error.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you can accept that, we can move to the next step. If not,
then readers can draw their own conclusions.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art
Deco</A> ; <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:50 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under
oath inthematter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Well Wayne, this is becoming embarrassing.
Perhaps you should hang it up, take a little nap and try again another
day.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For starters why would I consider any thing
from wikipedia to be the final word on anything? A site where the content
can be altered by pretty much anyone with an opinion, a point of
view, and some time on their hands (someone much like yourself) would
hardly be the most definitive source for anyone's "reality"
check.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Also considering that you, yourself, choose
this particular article, I think that it's extremely telling that nowhere
in the conclusions of the afore mentioned piece did the eight democrats
and seven republicans (Hagel & Snowe hardly count as republicans) find
any indication of wrong doing by the current administration. It should go
without saying that there is no mention of the actual topic we had been
discussing, Valerie Plame.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Now that we are actually back to the original
topic at hand, allow me to reiterate. A janitor at the CIA is not a covert
operative. A security guard at the CIA is not a covert operative. An
analyst at the CIA is not a covert operative. After hearing Ms. Plame
testify to congress, seeing the piece in Vanity Fair, watching her on
CNN's Larry King, and listening to her idiot husband blowviate at
length in various forums, it seems likely to me that what Ms. Plame
really did at the agency was polish. Apples, brass, knobs, and her own
reputation and sense of self-worth, and only one of those things did she
do covertly.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007
4:25 PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but
they will not testify under oath inthematter</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Gary,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you would like to get in touch with reality, you can start
here:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jampot@adelphia.net href="mailto:jampot@adelphia.net">g.
crabtree</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=deco@moscow.com
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> ; <A
title=vision2020@moscow.com href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision
2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:59 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under
oath in thematter</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Wayne, you certainly are a hoot. it would
seem that when I post I must account for my every thought and opinion. I
must provide my source, make sure it's ideologically pure, and
include exact quotes in perfect context to support my every stray
thought. You, on the other hand, have free reign. For
example:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Verdana>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana size=3>Was the outing
of Plame as payback for her husband correctly pointing out that the
administration's view of the Iraq/Africa nuclear connection was clearly
wrong, if not a deliberate lie, a fine, a honest, ethical act by
the administration or a despicably treacherous, if not
childish one? </FONT></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><FONT face=Verdana
size=3></FONT> </DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Incorrect in so many different ways,
not the least of which would be your unique, bordering on superhuman
ability to look into the mind of another and deduce their motivations
and emotions. Also where are the appropriate series of cites and
complete quotes which would give this idiot paragraph so much as a
shred of veracity?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Its clear to me that you are falling back
on the fine old tactic of framing any discussion in your own terms,
setting up foolish parameters for others to meet (even when you,
yourself don't) and when they don't have the patience to indulge you in
your silly game, you crow of your 'victory' like a banty rooster and
castigate your opponent as being your lesser. Well here's a hot news
flash for ya, Florence, I'm not overly concerned with winning your
respect. Quite the contrary, should I ever suspect that I am in
danger of gaining it I will immediately rethink my positions
as I'm certain that I will have made a terrible mistake in my
thinking or lack thereof.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I consider this homework assignment
complete and the instructor a doddering ideologue. I assign myself
a C- as its hard to work up much enthusiasm to respond to an hidebound,
superannuated partisan hack.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>