touché on Hillary.

But the question is what should be done to  prevent that.  An
argument was made and can still be made that inspections worked
and were working and that is why his "program" was not producing.
 Why are we, then, not invading North Korea?

My only point about Bush is that he was not elected by a majority
vote--a fact.

So I'm not sure what your quite valid points prove about mine.


On 7 Oct 2003, at 11:40, Richard Seddon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Nancy wrote:
>  But as I always point out, Americans
> > did not, in fact, "trust" to Bush.  They voted for Gore by half a
> > million.
> but as Rick can't help but point out:
> Americans almost equally didn't "trust" Gore.  And, less we forget, Clinton
> polled for most of his Presidency as not being on the right track.  And,
> twas many a year ago that Bush 1 ran the CIA.
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
> Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
> stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.  He has
> also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda
> members.  It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
> continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
> and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
> - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
> Rick Seddon
> McIntosh, NM