DP> GP> And how the speech was carefully worded so as to allow the possibility
DP> GP> that he could attack ANYONE, including former close allies, on mere
DP> GP> SUSPICION??? :P
DP>
DP> He didn't discuss the proofs he would use (or not use, as the case may
DP> be) but yeah, you're basically right.
DP>
DP> The problem with terror is that it doesn't come out and announce itself
DP> as such - until after the deed is done.  It doesn't provide a clear
DP> enemy - it forces you to hunt and dig and scratch until you figure out the
DP> thread of evidence which point to a perpetrator.  Bush's comment was
DP> that he would tackle terrorists and the countries which harbour and support
DP> them.  That's a fairly wide brush, and covers a lot of territory.  I
DP> support the idea.

His speech also included the idea that those who weren't 100% gung-ho with Bush
in his attack on Afghanistan, could be painted with that brush of
"enemy" (ie.
Canada)

Because I care,
|<+]::-)  (Cyberpope(the Bishop of ROM!))


... nfx v3.1                                                                 

--- Maximus 3.01