And besides, it's the RATS who are most concerned about the political ramifications. A successful mission against Saddam will cost them heavily at the polls. So what is this worthless White House source intimating? I must assume that he was misquoted.
That's an interesting point, sultan.
It now dawns on me there doesn't necessarily have to be an "unnamed White House source," a'tall.
I mean, why go through all that *work* if ya didn't have to; &, better yet, ya couldn't possibly be caught?
After all, this "is" the American Lamestream media we're talking about, here.
Since there's no law under the sun which could force 'em to tell their sources; not, without having the inquirer first tread hell & high water?
They're expecting us to take their word for anything & without any proof but their say??
Given their lousy track record I'd say believing anything outa that bunch is a genuine sucker's bet.
It'd be infinitely easier to simply lie about these supposed quotes & then quickly, "just move on" to tomorrow's edition.
A hellova lot cheaper on the ol' expense account, too; *maximizes* profits to the nth degree and we know how the Liberal-Socialist loves their $$.
~eh?
"The ends justify the means."
"By any means necessary."
The Leftist-Socialists have many times stated in no uncertain terms they'd have no compunction lieing -- about anything whatsoever -- if it furthered their *agenda(s)*??
They do have more than a few whoppers on their agenda needing to be *pushed* on the American public, don't they?
Now would the Leftist-Socialist Lamestream tell bald-faced *lies* & palm it off as factual, "News"??
...that is *The* real bottom-line question. {g}
Well guys, FWIW, I've got a little different take on the WH source's comment. And that is, his comment taken at face value simply states that it's not a legal question; it's a political question. To me he was just stating what is to them the obvious: they have the legal authority; do they have the political(i.e. moral) authority. I don't get a PC "feel" from this one.
FGS