though. I have to second Ross that, Dan is hardly arguing from the mindset of the standard jingoistic rabble - nor is he of their ilk. Maybe you haven't ever talked with him; I have - so you are at a disadvantage in trying to discern his 'agenda'. I can't concur with his take on this situation, of course.

I believe (obv) that a decision to support the carte blanche this Admin has placed before the congress - is tantamount to congress' ceding its Constitutional authority. Illegally prima facie. I don't know what has brought Dan to believe that somehow the situation justifies such an extreme act, and to conceive that Iraq represents, on 10/10/02: that immediate threat to the US which is deemed "self defense" in its normal meaning. (For *that* is the ONLY situation in which we may both! be legitimate members of the UN *AND* unilaterally take bellicose action == we can't have that both ways)

But whatever Dan is, it isn't Yahoo IMhO. FWIW.



Ashton