Replies

Thanks for the link. As I tried to say to the other poster, information on Iraqi WMD production, links to terrorism, etc., are pretty much widely known, but not widely acknowledged (by Mr. Bush's opponents), for political reasons. "Evidence? What evidence?! There is no evidence!!" is the mantra of the press and Democrat partisans alike. There's a mention in Ann Coulter's book, TREASON, in which Michael Barone challenged Hillary "Rodham" Clift on the "no evidence" mantra on "McLaughlin Group," -- Clift: "There's no evidence of a link between Saddam and al Qaeda." Barone: "Actually, Elenor, there's quite a bit of evidence. Just read Michael Ledeen's book on the 'Terror Masters'..." Clift: "No evidence!..." Barone: "It's there; you should read it..." Clift: "No evidence!...No evidence!..." And so it goes. There is evidence. There are few so blind as those who will not see.

The subtitle of the article in the WEEKLY STANDARD is that, curiously, the Bush Administration has been strangely silent on the evidence that has been mounting. I would agree, and it is a tad frustrating. But, I think it's all about timing. The Democrats have been running around since May, shooting off their collective mouths about "NO EVIDENCE," and I suspect the Administration has been quietly gathering evidence, which will be put forward in the Kay report on WMD, and probably a similar report on links to terrorism. Can one blame the White House for giving the Dems as much rope as they'll take to hang themselves? This may seem unfair, and politically motivated, but which is worse...the Democrats undercutting our efforts in the war on terror, or the Bush Administration holding back the evidence in order to doom the Democrats? The Democrats daily give aid and comfort to our enemies. If Bush can destroy them all in how he releases the evidence the Dems say doesn't exist, more power to him.