John;


Excellent links! Well done! Once again we either depend upon memory or something that has been published. It is amazing how many things are not on the Internet that are pertinent to knowledge. Others can be hard to find. With this administration I am amazed how many things are not to be found once uttered over the media. Those that are remembered are pushed aside. No one seems able to defend a position that something is wrong in the White House.

The Republicans spent eight years attacking Clinton and almost shut down our nation. Somehow we continued but not with the will of the American people and certainly not with cooperation between the White House and Congress. Our present administration can do no wrong – they are “good Americans”. Everyone who thinks differently is suspect.

It is interesting to argue over the use of a word, and depend upon forgetfulness to defend a position. I think what is really important is the end result – the attack on Iraq.

Having read several of the writings of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, I shutter at his concepts for the world.

By the way, seeking balance, and providing evidence are irrelevant to mad dogs. :)

Tom


>Just for balance...
>
>here is something interesting, initially asserting that the admin never claimed SH/WMD was an imminent threat, but see the interesting commentary further down, incuding the ref to an official document about imminent threat:
>
>http://www.usefulwork.com/shark/archives/001158.html
>
>and here is something easy (from Pakistan!) that has some relevance too.
>
>http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_29-1-2004_pg4_2
>
>Finally this; important to realise that a lot of people interpret the current situation as an argument that "two wrongs make a right..."
>
>http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2003/05lawless.htm