Paul,

I have to say 'ditto'. I would have included some of the same opinions in my
last e-mail had it not begun to take on proportions approaching a tome. I
would like to add that the US administration has had to admit that there
nothing of a more current nature to offer as evidence and that some of what
the originally offered as evidence is questionable.

The 9/11 attacks took place within US borders and as you pointed out, the
9/11 perpetrators were here in the US, and because of this so much of the
debate is essentially unimportant and tangential to the question of what to
do about securing the US. The question now is how to accomplish this same
task with 200 billion (give or take a few billion) dollars less and the very
real threat of Iraq becoming a attractor/haven for Al Qaeda, et al.

Glenn

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Christidis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 10:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Where Bush conspiracy theories come from

Denys,

Do you read the articles that you present or you just send a plethora of
URLs just to discourage the reader.  I looked up the 'WMD' ones and all of
them refer to events of the late '80s.  Remember those times?  when WE were
supplying Iraq with satellite photos of Iranian troop movements so that
Iraq could win that war (we really did not care what weapons they used
against them).  I guess back then the enemy of our enemy had to be our
friend and we could not speak ill about our friends.  Those were also the
times that we did not even condemn Saddam's usage of chemical weapons on
the Kurds (I think we were the ONLY major nation not to do so).

So 15-20 years later Saddam's usage of chemical weapons is used to justify
our invasion.  But perhaps we are consistent, then and now we went against
world opinion.

Regarding the links referring to media not reporting WMD finds:
  And I guess David Kay must have lied too.   After trying for almost a
year he reported back "We were all lied to".   Do you honestly believe that
if WMD were found FoxNews would have kept it quiet?  Give me a break.

Here are the first two paragraphs from your 'Russians' link:
  Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence
service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq
that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets
both inside and outside the country.


Putin, who opposed Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, did not go into
detail about the information that was forwarded, and said Russia had no
evidence that Hussein was involved in any attacks.


And the rest of the article follows the same tactic of first leveling an
allegation and then undermining it. I guess that's one way of being
'balanced'.


I did not read all of the links about Iraq's ties to Al Qaeda, but I'll
offer you the following observation.  On  the days leading up to 9/11/2004
there were more Al-Qaeda operatives in the US than there EVER were in Iraq
(I guess someone could thus claim that ties existed between US and
Al-Qaeda).


BTW on an earlier e-mail you wrote:

No.  I have not seen the Moore film.  Nor will I see the Moore film.  I
have no need to see it to know that it's playing fast and loose with the
facts.  I have read in many places that he relies heavily on Joe
Wilson's opinions.

Your statement proves that you should not believe everything your read.
Joe Wilson's opinions are NOT mentioned at ALL in the movie.


Regards


Paul Christidis

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *