So let me get that straight, are you saying that that whole thing you attributed
to Safire you just made up?



"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:43:44 -0800, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

I would not call Safire's view balanced. He's pretty right wing.

Ganzy, you just don't get it, do you? Only the first paragraph of my
message--the part about the historical use of the term "imminent" and its
historical legal significance--is Safire. Obviously you didn't read the
article. Rather than address whether his history is factually correct, you
simply start calling him names and then sing your same old hymn. Do you
disagree that historically the word "imminent" attack or threat has been
used to justify a preemptive strike?

The remainder of the message--the part about enunciating an new doctrine
that in today's world a strike may be justified even if attack is not
"imminent," and the Dems' related floundering--is purely my analysis. So
now, instead of calling him names, I suppose you'll start calling me names
and singing your refrain at me.


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27