-> ->> you've got what i've got... i'm just delivering the message...
-> ->> you want "proof"? do the research you appear to
be asking me
-> ->> to do ;-)

->  EC> I'm perfectly willing (unlike many in this echo) to support
->  EC> the claims I make.  But I see no reason to support the claims
->  EC> of others.

-> i guess Frontline isn't good enough for you?

I have no idea what Frontline said, but I hope it wouldn't speculate on
what "theory" people have in mind without some tangible basis such as
things they have written or things they have said in speeches.  Too many
people project their own biases into pseudo-facts.  These days you can
fin d people on any sidewalk who will tell you that they KNOW the REAL
reason why Bush might attack Iraq.  All those REAL reasons that they
KNOW are true cannot all be true.  And they rarely have anything to do
with the peace negotiations after the Gulf War or the Iraqi weapons of
mass destruction.

Maybe Rumsfeld really believes that we have a responsibility to spread
democracy.  Most of this "theory" sounds pretty good, until you get to
the point of possibly imposing it on others.  If so, those who make the
claim should be able to support it.  Otherwise they are just creating a
myth.

A good journalist would not just speculate on motives.  And a good
journalist would not just assume that this motive is the "real reason"
while all else is just mask.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a