Do you recognise emotive arguments versus plain facts ? When someone says a person had a 'Relentless Drive to acquire Nukes' how do you read that ? - unemotive ?, not manipulative ?, does it tell us anything substantive ? If you think yes then ask your self what major country that is vulnerable doesn't have a 'relentless drive to acquire nukes' for their defence ? When a writer states that someone who has done a terrorist act 'might' have been associated with Iraq - how do you read that ? as a smoking gun ? - as a fact ? If this same writes argues a justification for war based on that a terrorist 'might now be living in Iraq' - how do you read that - as fact ? Doug M (If Iraq is up to no good, let us be quite certain about it before we do anything like declare war - I have no compunction whatsoever about a pre-emptive strike if Saddam is proven to be planning attacks on US or major Terrorist attacks)