Jim West

wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

And you're grasping at straws, and trying to change the subject. The
administration has never linked 9/11 and Iraq, and never used that as
an "excuse for war", contrary to your contention.

Please read this letter that Bush sent to Congress:

http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/03031906.htm

Any comments?


Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information
available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:


(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful
means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions
regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary
actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including
those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Damn, my high school English teachers would have fits over your implication and
they were *Democrats*! g
The form and structure is quite clear and allows for only one correct
interpretation. Read it again and you'll notice two things.
First, the semicolon followed by the word "and" where (1) is separated from (2)
makes it clear that (1) does not rely on (2). All by itself (1) is sufficient
reason for the actions taken as is (2).
Second, (2) describes two separate categories of legitimate targets-
international terrorists and terrorist organizations and entities that aided
the 9/11 attacks in some fashion. Entities in the latter group are, by
definition, members of the former but the reverse is neither implied nor
stated.

People may not agree that US actions in Iraq are justified by any of the above
and that's their right. It is *not* their right though to take one statement
("... persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.") completely out of context,
ignore the basic rules of English grammar, twist it into something other than
it is, and claim it is somehow proof of bad faith. Those that would do that
remind me of the most famous quote of a politician-
"That depends on what "is" is." g

Regards,
Bob Hunt