"DSK" wrote in message
...
Oh, but BushCo, and hence, all of you lemmings are saying that Iraqis
WANT our form of democracy. If that is true, then what would we be
deterring?

NOYB wrote:
Iran.


That must be why Iran just elected a hard-liner President, and told the
European nuclear inspectors to bugger off, and told Condi Rice words to
the effect that if they want to build an atom bomb, they will, and tough
luck for everybody else.

Great deterrent.

"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's
office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with
drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a
large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could
not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deterrent is working.

Read between the lines, Kevin:
"Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the
weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress
and prosperity of our time."

resources=oil

share in prosperity=sell us oil




wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

On June 30, Lee introduced a bill that states it is "the policy of
the
United States not to enter into any base agreements with the
government
of
Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence
in
Iraq." The bill currently has 41 co-sponsors." (All Democrats no
doubt).

Probably. It's usually the democrats who have the ability to think
clearly

"think clearly"? The troops are there as a deterrent...just as they
were
in
post-War Germany, Japan, and South Korea as a deterrent. Perhaps your
Democratic brethren think it was a bad idea to station troops in all
of
those countries for the past 40-50 years?

Oh, but BushCo, and hence, all of you lemmings are saying that Iraqis
WANT our form of democracy. If that is true, then what would we be
deterring?

Iran.

Please show in in this speech by Bush, where he says any such thing.
You've given two seperate spins this thread why we are in Iraq. Plus,
you've stated that is WAS for oil. Now, this speech doesn't state any
of your reasons. SO, either you don't know why we are there, or else
Bush lied, which is it?

President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat
Remarks by the President on Iraq
Cincinnati Museum Center - Cincinnati Union Terminal
Cincinnati, Ohio




President's Remarks
view
listen




8:02 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Thank you for that very gracious and warm
Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight; I appreciate you
all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to
peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting
that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's
own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an
arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the
Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons
of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to
stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated
all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and
biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter
and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.
The entire world has witnessed Iraq's eleven-year history of defiance,
deception and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On
September the 11th, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to
threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then,
and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source,
that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the
United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat
to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be
permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and
diseases and gases and atomic weapons. Since we all agree on this goal,
the issues is : how can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of
the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about
the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war
on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully
within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those
discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes
that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the
world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most
serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used
chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has
tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a
small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an
unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by
the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief
weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with
Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a
homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger
is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know
Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make
any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even
stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of
Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was
forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax
and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded
that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a
massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted
for, and capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical
agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas. Saddam
Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered
chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own
country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more
than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of
September the 11th.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities
that it had used to produce chemical and biological weapons. Every
chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct
violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991. Yet,
Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons despite
international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized
world.

Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of
miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other
nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and
service members live and work. We've also discovered through
intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned
aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological
weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways
of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States. And, of
course, sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical
or biological attack; all that might be required are a small container
and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's
links to international terrorist groups. Over the years, Iraq has
provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror
organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries
that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans. Iraq
has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for
seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we
know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror and gives assistance to
groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common
enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda
have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda
leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very
senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this
year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and
biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda
members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that
after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated
the terrorist attacks on America.

Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical
weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with
terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without
leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract
from the war against terror. To the contrary; confronting the threat
posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. When I spoke to
Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists
are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring
terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death
and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great
that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction
are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we
confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting
both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a
nuclear weapon. Well, we don't know exactly, and that's the problem.
Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was
eight to ten years away from developing a nuclear weapon. After the
war, international inspectors learned that the regime has been much
closer -- the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear
weapon no later than 1993. The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an
advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a
workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of
enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy
Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities,
including three uranium enrichment sites. That same year, information
from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected revealed
that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his
nuclear program to continue.

The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons
program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear
scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear
holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding
facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the
past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and
other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich
uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of
highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it
could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that
to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in
a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be
in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to
threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass
nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why
do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced
the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate
America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent
people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be
eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering
against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the
final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a
mushroom cloud. As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, "Neither
the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can
tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any
nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where
only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to
a nations security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and
deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the
worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old
approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure.
Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991. The
U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi
regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they
were going next; they forged documents, destroyed evidence, and
developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.
Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to
unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass twelve square
miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground,
where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions -- and watched Iraq use
billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons
purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction capabilities -- only to see them openly rebuilt,
while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his
own people -- and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired
upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After eleven years during which we have tried containment, sanctions,
inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that
Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons and is
increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer
to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions or
enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants
the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And
that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new
resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Among those
requirements: the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N.
supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that
we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal
activities to be interviewed outside the country -- and these witnesses
must be free to bring their families with them so they all beyond the
reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder. And inspectors must have
access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay,
without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end.
Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we
will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime
be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international
security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs. And
that's why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions
of the U.N. Security Council seriously.

And these resolutions are clear. In addition to declaring and
destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its
support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian
population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the Oil For Food
program. It must release or account for all Gulf War personnel,
including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime
has an opportunity to avoid conflict. Taking these steps would also
change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime
will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little
reason to expect it. And that's why two administrations -- mine and
President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the
only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military
conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise
may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such
measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If
they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be
pursued and punished. If we have to act, we will take every precaution
that is possible. We will plan carefully; we will act with the full
power of the United States military; we will act with allies at our
side, and we will prevail. (Applause.)

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we
should wait -- and that's an option. In my view, it's the riskiest of
all options, because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam
Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give
weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the
world. But I'm convinced that is a hope against all evidence. As
Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace. But there
can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a
ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm not willing to stake one American
life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants, allow terrorists access to
new weapons and new resources, and make blackmail a permanent feature
of world events. The United Nations would betray the purpose of its
founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through
its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of
fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We
refuse to live in fear. (Applause.) This nation, in world war and in
Cold War, has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's
course. Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom,
and help others to find freedom of their own.

Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability
and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for
world security and for the people of Iraq. The lives of Iraqi citizens
would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power,
just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.
The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of
terror and control, within his own cabinet, within his own army, and
even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and
mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a
method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to
watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights,
to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity. People everywhere
prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to
the rule of terror and torture. America is a friend to the people of
Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them
and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest
benefit will come to Iraqi men, women and children. The oppression of
Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted.
The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.


Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the
weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the
progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary,
the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild
their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq
at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week, the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I
have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it
proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving
this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or
unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all
nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make
the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also
be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only chance --
his only choice is full compliance, and the time remaining for that
choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote. I'm confident they
will fully consider the facts, and their duties.

The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans
no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only
hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat
whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences
could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on
notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other
generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending
human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will
give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others.
And by our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a
better day.

NOBBY wrote:
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's
office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with
drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another
9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a
large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical
nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic
targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development
sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could
not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deterrent is working.


I can see why you're not lonely in your little fantasy world... you
don't lack for company, just for intelligent company.

Did Iran agree to inspections of it's suspected nuclear sites while I
was away? Monitoring of any part of it's nuclear program? Did they give
back that shipment of Russian nuclear materials which President Bush's
pal Putin sent them?

Didn't think so.

In other words, "the deterrent is working" in the same way that Saddam
was linked to 9-11 and the Iraqi insurgency is on it's last legs.

DSK

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

On June 30, Lee introduced a bill that states it is "the policy
of
the
United States not to enter into any base agreements with the
government
of
Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military
presence
in
Iraq." The bill currently has 41 co-sponsors." (All Democrats no
doubt).

Probably. It's usually the democrats who have the ability to think
clearly

"think clearly"? The troops are there as a deterrent...just as they
were
in
post-War Germany, Japan, and South Korea as a deterrent. Perhaps
your
Democratic brethren think it was a bad idea to station troops in all
of
those countries for the past 40-50 years?

Oh, but BushCo, and hence, all of you lemmings are saying that Iraqis
WANT our form of democracy. If that is true, then what would we be
deterring?

Iran.

Don't you get dizzy from all the spinning you do? Rush taught you well.


I was a quick learner. I haven't listened to Rush since just prior to the
1996 Presidential election.

Kevin is clueless as usual......rush is little more than a
newsreader......95% of what he says is taken from editorials, op eds, blogs
etc from around the country and the world. ( the major local station (WJR)
that I keep on in the office carries him, by the time he airs, it is
simply repitition of what I have already seen online that morning.

"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOBBY wrote:
"The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick
Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command
(STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response
to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan
includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional
and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major
strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program
development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep
underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the
nuclear option."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The deterrent is working.


I can see why you're not lonely in your little fantasy world... you don't
lack for company, just for intelligent company.

Did Iran agree to inspections of it's suspected nuclear sites while I was
away? Monitoring of any part of it's nuclear program? Did they give back
that shipment of Russian nuclear materials which President Bush's pal
Putin sent them?

Didn't think so.

In other words, "the deterrent is working" in the same way that Saddam was
linked to 9-11 and the Iraqi insurgency is on it's last legs.

Saddam is no longer in power. And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...


NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...


NOYB wrote:

On June 30, Lee introduced a bill that states it is "the policy of the
United States not to enter into any base agreements with the
government
of
Iraq that would lead to a permanent United States military presence in
Iraq." The bill currently has 41 co-sponsors." (All Democrats no
doubt).

Probably. It's usually the democrats who have the ability to think
clearly

"think clearly"? The troops are there as a deterrent...just as they were
in
post-War Germany, Japan, and South Korea as a deterrent. Perhaps your
Democratic brethren think it was a bad idea to station troops in all of
those countries for the past 40-50 years?

Oh, but BushCo, and hence, all of you lemmings are saying that Iraqis
WANT our form of democracy. If that is true, then what would we be
deterring?

Iran.

Well, NOYB, will you show me in the speech that I posted from Oct.
2002, where in there Bush mentioned Iran, OR that he was going to post
troops in Iraq permanently?

NOYB wrote:
snip...

And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.


That hot Florida sun must be beating down on your head. Tell that to the
1800 war dead slipped back into the US under cover.

"Don White" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
snip...

And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.

Get your facts straight.


That hot Florida sun must be beating down on your head. Tell that to the
1800 war dead slipped back into the US under cover.

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than 1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those 3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.

NOYB wrote:

It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than 1
fateful day in September '01. It wasn't insurgents who killed those 3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


Not sure how your Funk & Wagnels defines insurgents...but I went to
Google and entered "insurgents" + "iraq" in the search engine. Google
says there are over 2 million hits.

NOYB wrote:
And there is no "insurgency" in Iraq.


And the Easter Bunny lays colored eggs.

NOYB wrote:
It's pretty amazing that 2 1/2 years in a hostile country with porous
borders surrounded by enemy countries has produced fewer casualties than 1
fateful day in September '01.

??

You equate mass murder with military casualties?

Another question: if Iraq is "hostile" then how can anyboidy say we won
the war? And if the surrounding countries are 'enemy' then why did we
invade Iraq and not them?

If you keep doing stupid things, you always get bad results.

... It wasn't insurgents who killed those 3,000
Americans on 9/11...and it's not insurgents who killed 1800 US troops and
countless Iraqi civilians since March 2003.


So, if you want to eliminate the terrorist problem, you redefine the
word 'terrorist.' I remember a while back there was a raging debate over
the meaning of the word 'is'....

DSK