[LonghornFreeper]

I think you guys are all taking this article the wrong way. She supports Bush, and the war, and never in the article does she question that Iraq has WMD, or that Bush has evidence of it. We have all heard rhetoric, we have all heard about Halabja (spelling not certain), it is time to show us evidence of why we are going to war. I don't doubt for a minute that Bush has it, but it is time for us to see it.

[The Great Satan]

I do agree with Noonan that ringing rhetoric is probably not what's needed this time around. It doesn't feel right. If, BTW, Bush has solid intelligence assessments that show that the Atta-al-Ani meeting in Prague is a myth, and/or that the anthrax came from a rogue US bioweapons scientist -- and I cannot believe he doesn't have the answers to those questions, given the stakes involved and the time that has passed -- then he should clean those things off the table once and for all, so we can make an obective decision on whether an attack on Iraq is justified on purely preemptive grounds. However, I can virtually guarantee you that the reason those two issues have been left ambiguous in the public mind is precisely because Bush does know the answers, and they amount to some very bad news for the United States.