BilZ0r at TAKETHISOUThotmail.com
Fri Jan 30 08:48:39 EST 2004
I think (because I still don't 100% understand what you say), for the
very first time, I completely agree with you ken. :)
"k p Collins" <kpaulc@[----------]earthlink.net> wrote in
news:VTsSb.2567$jH6.507 at newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> Two articles on the =Washington Post=
> web site have 'simultaneity' that is extra-
> ordinarily 'curious'. It's my Analysis that
> it is Colusion in 'high'-places that under-
> pins this 'simulteneity'.
> The dynamics discussed in the Reports
> smack of "pre-emption" - set-ups re.
> further dynamics that are yet to be
> 1. "Hill Probers Fault Iraq Intelligence
> Panels' Early Findings Are Similar to Kay's
> By Dana Priest and Walter Pincus
> Washington Post Staff Writers
> Friday, January 30, 2004; Page A01"
> =hpto p_tb
> 2. "Inquiry Leaves BBC in Crisis
> 2nd Official Quits Over Iraq Findings; Journalists Walk Out
> By Glenn Frankel
> Washington Post Foreign Service
> Friday, January 30, 2004; Page A11"
> =hpto c_w
> "`The atmosphere is bleak,' said a
> member of the staff of 'Today,' the
> radio news program that first aired
> the intelligence allegations. `People
> inside the BBC are desperately anxious
> that this affair doesn't lead to the
> unraveling of our independence.'
> The BBC, which raises most of its
> funds through a compulsory licensing
> fee, is overseen by the government.
> While Ryder serves as temporary BBC
> chairman, the government will launch
> a search for a successor, over which
> Blair will have the final say."
> It's my Analysis that =part= of what's
> being 'pre-empted' is the fact that
> =anyone= who looked, before the
> War in Irag was launched, could see
> that, when juxtaposed against the
> Consequences inherent in going to
> War - which include having to deal
> with the explosively-quick "rendering
> useless" [AoK, Ap8] of the dictaor's
> iron-fisted control of the Iraqi Citizenry -
> the 'benefits' of launching the War were
> not Justified in-Truth.
> =Anyone= who only looked - who
> only read the News accounts pertain-
> ing - could see that, between the op-
> tions of seeking amplified Diplomacy
> vs. going to War, it was no contest.
> The Iraqi dictator, and his upper-'level'
> cohorts were all seeking raproachment.
> Yet all of this was 'just' ignored prior
> to launching the War.
> It's my Analysis that Administrations
> in both the U.S.A. and G. B. are, 'now',
> doing more of the same sort of head-
> long ['head-strong'] rushing-ahead with
> old, long-previously-established 'plans',
> only, 'now', instead of directing their
> 'pre-emptive strikes' against Iraq, they
> are directing them against their own
> K. P. Collins
More information about the Neur-sci