From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Wed Sep 18 2002 - 17:52:56 MDT
In a message dated 9/18/2002 6:16:45 PM Central Standard Time,
CurtAdams@aol.com writes: But the discussions are overwhelmingly driven by
these tribalistic conflict instincts and legalistic interpretations of
various international treaties. I would hope that in a list hypothetically
dominated by those who recognize the profound limitations and inadequacies of
both human instincts and modern governments the members would actually have
some useful stuff to say.
Now is that really true? Or is it just a knee jerk reaction? I know many
people discussing this thread that are painfully aware of the congressional
inquiry going on at this time. We know from listening that a great deal of
information or intelligence was known to the intelligence community, the
"common" man and to the members of congress before 911. There was so much
information that today it seems unbelievable that no one connected the dots.
But we know that today our suspicions and attempts to connect dots are
dismissed as "tribal conflict instincts and legalistic interpretations"
instead of being recognized for what they are -- an instinct to live and a
fear of being killed when the evidence points to a clear and present danger.
Yet today we are treated to the sight of congressmen running around
pointing fingers in every direction, asking why no one predicted the Al Qaeda
strikes and pretending to have been kept totally in the dark -- they even
bring in widows to demand why we didn't connect the dots before 911.
Today we have as much or more information on Sadaam Hussein. The dots
are there to connect. We still have people with their heads planted firmly
in the ground screaming to us that there is no danger. They claim to be high
toned pacifists and denigrate our military at every turn. They denigrate our
being able to see and interpret evidence that is plainly before all our
noses. Those same people will be demanding later to know why the hawks
didn't connect the dots and protect them. They will be the first to demand
why we didn't make a preemptive strike. Or that is my prediction.
Ron h.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:08 MST