<!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>I wrote:</DIV>
<DIV> </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></BODY></HTML>