Basically, that's what he's saying. And, by me saying, quite rightly, that
he's does
not particularly espouse a balanced view and is pretty right wing (a comment
that
many have used when referring to him), I'm now calling him names... seems
to me that Dave is the one who is calling people names when he calls me
Ganzy, which he knows isn't my name and which is suppose to offend me. (It
would if I were still in grade school.)

And, to Dave... you're right, I really didn't read the article. Why would I
want
to read an article by the likes of Safire, someone who is not presenting a
balanced
view.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
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