anybody got a line on

[thisday]

the columnist ted van dyk,whose writing appears in the seattle
P.I.?

i'm afraid i went off on him via e-mail after reading him today,
(dec.11th)and called him a lying media pig.

i always regret losing my temper and indeed i was feeling guilty
when i got his reply,which wasn't long in coming.

i was impressed that he did not return my angry words.he just
said i should get a handle on my anger and then went on to say
again that bush did not lie about the wmd's,that there was broad
consensus among former clinton administration,U.N., and interna-
tional officials that S.H.had or was developing wmd's.Dyk also
said that only last week "we"found that saddam had been trying
to buy missile systems from korea.

he seems to sincerely believe what he says,and he says he's a dem,
trying to "matter of factly" present the current circumstances,
and bush simply made a policy mistake,and did not lie.

he was so nice i actually apologised.any comments?

[punpirate]

1. Certainly he's wrong about...

... "broad international consensus," and the "UN." Previous UN inspection teams had virtually eliminated such weapons, and the US refused to allow the UNSCOM teams more time.

As for Bush not lying, it's either that or he chose to believe cooked intelligence. There is little structural difference between the two possibilities.

Besides, Bush has been quoted as saying, "Fuck Saddam--we're taking him out" in spring, 2002, well before all the rhetoric about WMDs was started. Add to that the remarks Powell and Rice made in Belgium in early 2001 about Hussein being contained and disarmed, and I think it's quite clear that the reasons for the war had little to do with WMDs.

Cheers.

[newyawker99]

2. Hi thisday!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[truthspeaker]

3. reply and apologize for losing your temper

then respectfully correct his misinformation.

[thisday]

4. thanks for the input folks, 'preciate it

n't