HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Sept. 26, 2005 Dr. Brooks Mick is being disingenuous when he says I fibbed (sic) about him in the article I posted previously to give the lie to his right-wing conspiracy theories. (Incidentally, the present article was submitted originally on September 15, when it would have been more timely.) In an e-mail message of February 10, 2005, Dr. Mick has interspersed his replies to statements that I had made in previous correspondence. Here is an excerpt, where Dr. Mick’s comments are parenthesized, complete with one of the the smart-aleck remarks that he thinks constitute legitimate reasoning; “Why the nonsense about WMD? ((It wasn’t nonsense, as every intelligence agency in the world had concluded that it was probable if not certain that Saddam had WMD. We couldn’t afford to leave them in his hands if he had them.)) Why the nonsense about a Saddam-Osama alliance? ((Not nonsense. Iraq did contain al Qaeda training camps, and there were other links. Stop denying reality and you might get somewhere.))” On September 2, 2005, in reply to one of Dr. Mick’s irritating messages, I made this simple statement: “The only thing is that Iraq did not and could not have attacked the US.” To this plain statement of fact, the strident physician responded the same day, with his usual untruths and vituperation, boor that he is: 1.) There is at least suspicious evidence that, in fact, the Omaha (sic) City bombers had contact with muslim (sic) terrorists, specifically Iraqi secret service types. 2.) There is evidence that airplane hijackers were trained at Salman Pak. 3.) There is clear evidence that Iraq tried to kill or kidnap George H. W. Bush. Is not an attack on an American president reason to be just a little hostile? 4.) Terrorists are the delivery system. Iraq did not need ICBMs. 5.) I suppose you would say that “Saudi Arabia” didn’t have the capability of attacking the USA. But weren’t most of the 9/11 terrorists Saudis? Get real! Any muslim (sic) extremist country can attack the USA with one terrorist with one suitcase nuke or a briefcase of anthrax or Sarin gas. You can’t be that much of an idiot that you spout these left-wing wacko mantras without stopping to consider how totally wrong they are, are you?” One would reasonably conclude that Dr. Mick did indeed posit a conspiracy between Osama ben Laden and Saddam Hussein, if he said, “Not nonsense!,” when I had just called such an alliance nonsense. This is more than saying that there had been a few random contacts, going back as far as the 80’s, between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. If he imagines such a conspiracy, in the face of all the evidence against it, it borders on paranoia. And when I uttered the truism that Iraq could not have attacked United States, what would he mean by saying that the Oklahoma City bombers had had contact with Iraqi terrorist types? Is he not at least suggesting that Saddam had something to do with Oklahoma City? If not, why did he mention it in reply to my message. I had said only that Iraq could not have attacked the US; I had said nothing about McVeigh’s trip to the Philippines, as Dr. Mick now tries to pass off as the meaning of his responses. Or is he saying that McVeigh’s possibly having had contact with Iraqi terrorists, without Saddam’s knowledge, is justification for the invasion of Iraq? Where is his evidence that Iraq contained al Qaeda training camps. If he means Salman Pak, then this has been debunked by Scott Ritter. As for the attempt on G.H.W. Bush, if Dr. Mick is talking about the alleged plot of 1993, he is really straining my credulity to suppose he can persuade me that suddenly, after 10 years of dormancy, the plot suddenly became a casus belli. Just let me append my own personal comparison of Dr. Mick and myself. He constantly lets it be known that he is a conservative and a Republican. Contrary to this, I do not consider myself a member of any particular persuasion or party. In fact, most of the issues that people talk about, like education, Medicare, tax cuts, etc., are of no interest to me. My only interest in politics in the last two and a half years has been the progress of the Iraqi war, which I knew was undertaken fraudulently even before it began. Otherwise, I am neither for or against George Bush, the Republican Party or anyone else. Dr. Mick apparently is interested only in mouthing conservative and Republican platitudes, without regard for fact. He sees the political forum as a tug-of-war between Republicans and Democrats, conservative and liberals, or right wing and left wing. But I don’t have the least interest in all of that. My only interest is truth and justice. ------------ About the author Thomas Keyes: I have written two books: A SOJOURN IN ASIA (non-fiction) and A TALE OF UNG (fiction), neither published so far. I have studied languages for years and traveled extensively on five continents. Email: udikeyes@yahoo.com Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
