Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 4:55:07 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Democratic Fog of War Daschle, Gore, Dopey, Sneezy, et al. On Wednesday Tom Daschle blew a gasket on the Senate floor. According to the Democratic Majority leader, his fury stemmed from an article by the Washington Post's Dana Milbank which — surprise! — cast President Bush in a bad and unfair light. Milbank wrote: "Four times in the past two days, Bush has suggested that Democrats do not care about national security, saying on Monday that the Democratic-controlled Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'" "You tell those who fought in Vietnam and World War II they are not interested in the security of the American people. That is outrageous. Outrageous!" screamed a senator most assumed wouldn't scream if you poured a pot of hot coffee in his lap. Senator Daschle and other Democrats have since gone to great lengths to count up the missing limbs of various veteran Democrats in order to stir the pot of outrage. Friday's Washington Post reports that the president's accusation "has undermined Bush's campaign to win swift, bipartisan approval of a muscular resolution from Congress." The Post story continues, "Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D., S.D.), still seething over the remarks and requesting an apology, gave a cool reception to a new proposal that would grant Bush the power to strike Baghdad unilaterally if he deems it necessary." Unfortunately, the president's accusation — that the Democratic Senate is "not interested in the security of the American people" cited by Milbank wasn't actually about the war on terrorism. It was about the fight over the proposed Department of Homeland Security in which the Democrats do seem to care more about the security of union jobs (and union-campaign donations) than they do about the security of the American people. Daschle, in his "seething" anger seemed to have elided straight over that point. But that is a quibble. It is surely true that President Bush has made a political issue of the war. For reasons that continue to baffle me, this is considered unfair or illegitimate. I keep wondering what history books these people have read. After all I could swear the texts I read in college featured all sorts of heroes — including Democrats — who'd campaigned on issues of war and peace. In 1916, a president I find detestable, but whom Democrats adore, Woodrow Wilson, ran with the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War." I'm pretty sure that FDR used the issue of his wartime leadership in campaigns, but I'm open to correction. John F. Kennedy ran on the so-called "Missile Gap" which seemed to vanish the moment he took office. George McGovern, another South Dakotan senator, I'm pretty sure, ran on a strict antiwar platform in the 1972 election. And those are just a few of the Democrats; don't get me started on famed Indian-fighter Andrew Jackson or Republicans like Abe Lincoln or Dwight Eisenhower. Is it so outlandish that during an election the president of the United States would put the issue of war and peace before the American people? There's absolutely nothing wrong, that I can see, with any principled Democrat or Republican running on an antiwar platform. "Elect me to put the breaks on Bush's war machine" seems like a reasonable message to take to the American people — if the American people agree with you. After all, if President Bush's policy and his "mad rush" to battle are so stupid and reckless why are Democrats so furious that he's putting it out there for the American people to vote on? And there's the rub. Until Al Gore's self-immolation this week, pretty much all the presidential contenders — John Edwards, Gephardt, Daschle, Lieberman, et al. — in the Democratic party felt the need to support the president and the passage of a resolution supporting war. Indeed, the leaders of the Democratic party, which once was the home of such foreign-policy giants as Truman and Marshall, has acted like a band of dwarves and pygmies grabbing at the president's pant leg in support of his policies, even as they bit his ankles whenever they could. The same day that Daschle grew splenetic over the Washington Post report about the president's comments, the Majority Leader no doubt saw an accompanying story in the Post about how rank-and-file Democrats were growing frustrated with their leadership's support of the war. "Several Democrats pointedly suggested that Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and Gephardt are putting politics over policy by rushing to back a unilateral strike against Iraq," reported the Post's Jim VandeHei. "Both men are considering a run for president in 2004 and hope to gain Democratic congressional seats this fall." Dennis Kucinich, the closest thing Congress has to a cartoon Bolshevik, lamented "It's not as though there's some great rush inside the party to support war. The problem is our leadership has been so outspoken in favor of Bush . . . it causes Democrats to be characterized as favoring the war." A cynic might, just might, suspect that Daschle's outburst had more to do with this article in the Post than the one he claimed to be so offended by. After all, if you are generally in favor of the war but need to bolster your support with the dove wing there's no better move than accusing the Republicans of McCarthyism — that always works. Regardless, am I the only one to see a certain contradiction in the fact that for months we've been told that any serious Democratic contender for the White House would have to support a war against Iraq and yet at the same time it's constantly suggested this is an unprincipled position? If war with Iraq is such a bad idea, why do Democratic presidential hopefuls feel the need to support it? And why, especially for a party that fetishizes the "will of the people," is taking the issue to the voters a bad thing? I just don't get it. THE GORE-IFICATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY But I take some solace that I don't understand the Democratic party's position on the war, because it is not understandable to the rational mind. Sure, if I spent a week as a taste-tester at a lead paint factory, I might find that the whole thing would click into a coherent whole, like one of those chaotic paintings which require an unfocused mind to see the pattern within it. But for those of us on the right and the left who take these issues seriously, it's hard to say that the Democratic party, taken as a whole, is a serious party. It wants to "raise questions" without even attempting to answer them itself. It consistently wants to be "troubled" by what Bush is doing without suggesting a course of action that might be less troubling. In short, it is a party of backseat drivers who don't have anything to say except that the current driver isn't good enough. The best example of this is not Tom Daschle's sudden outrage, but Al Gore's well-planned outrageousness. There's not much I can add to the chorus of criticism Gore's speech has received from every corner. Charles Krauthammer, Bill Bennett, Bill Safire, the editors of The New Republic and National Review have pointed to the countless examples of bad faith, bad logic, and just plain bad manners in Gore's manifesto of asininity. I recommend all of them as required reading for anyone who takes Gore seriously. And while I agree with many of the criticisms that have been made, there is one point about which all of them, my bosses included, are simply flat out wrong. They all argue, in the words of Bill Bennett, that this speech proves that if Gore "were president the war against terrorism would be conducted in a radically different manner." We know no such thing. And the reason we don't know it is that Al Gore simply cannot be trusted to say what he thinks and think what he says. For all we know a Gore presidency wouldn't resemble this speech in the slightest. Since the man from Carthage was always a Bill Clinton without the political skill, it is no surprise that this speech is Clintonism without the sugar coating. It is a skeleton without flesh, an ugly husk of appetite masquerading in an ill-fitting costume of principle. If one were to plug into a computer all of the things Gore has said over his political career about the use of force, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, and foreign policy in general, the computer would predict that Gore would behave almost exactly as George Bush has thus far in his presidency. There might be a bit more consultation with U.N. and some other variables stemming from the fact that he is a Democrat. But, in essence, Gore would favor nation building, Saddam-toppling, and the rest. But Gore cannot do that. He cannot support George W. Bush and run for president of the United States. So he must craft a position different from the correct one, different from his own, and, most importantly, different from George Bush's, because honesty, integrity, and intellectual consistency are just so much ballast holding down his presidential aspirations. I do not blame those who try to take Gore's speech as a serious argument about foreign policy. In a democracy, we must take our leaders at their word when they claim to be telling us how they would lead. But that doesn't change the fact that Gore's "argument" was really just a string of unconnected gripes and unfair jabs, coherent only insofar as they came out of one mouth and from one set of properly numbered pages. But if you step back and let your eyes focus you can see this fog of jargon wasn't an argument, it was a tantrum. And in that sense Gore really is the spokesman of his party.

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 4:58:06 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Respond to of 769670

We Must Fight Iraq By Christopher Hitchens Daily Mirror \| September 27, 2002 IT is almost certainly a mistake to assume anybody's position on Iraq is determined by evidence alone. After all, last year there was overwhelming evidence of the connection between the World Trade Center aggression, al-Qaeda and the Taliban - and a decisive UN mandate for action - but many on the left opposed military action in Afghanistan, and still do. I have the feeling that Tony Blair would feel happier making the moral case that Saddam must go. He could then lay more stress on the atrocious character of his regime, the plight of the Iraqi people, the aspirations of the Kurds and - perhaps most importantly - the opportunity to turn the tide against despotism in the wider Middle East. But as Prime Minister of a nation which has a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations, he is obliged to be somewhat legalistic. It must be obvious to anyone who can think at all that the charges against the Hussein regime are, as concerns arsenals of genocidal weaponry, true. Saddam has been willing to risk his whole system and his own life rather than relinquish this goal. And the resolutions of the UN are neither recent nor ambivalent. I doubt that even if this evidence could be upgraded to 100 per cent it would persuade the sort of people who go on self-appointed missions of mediation to Baghdad. These people further fail to see that governments now have a further responsibility to their citizens - namely to see that something is done to prevent future assaults on civilisation. President Bush calls this the doctrine of pre-emption, which obviously has its perils and could be used to justify very rash actions. Nonetheless, anybody with any sense must confess that there can be no return to the security posture adopted before September 11, 2001. A leader who was not trying to take the war to the enemy would be delinquent in the extreme. However, in the end the moral case for action is the strongest one. WE have inherited, along with the right to destroy an illegal system of aggressive weaponry, a responsibility for the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples. They are compelled to live with scarcity and fear in their daily existence, as a result of the policies of a homicidal megalomaniac. One day, this man's rule will be at an end. On that day, we want to be able to look these people in the eye and tell them that we cared about them, too. And a friendly Iraq, free again to trade and to make contact with the outside world, could transform the atmosphere of the Middle East. To take one small example, Iraq would no longer be supplying the more thuggish elements around Yasser Arafat, or offering subsidies to suicide bombers. And it might be noticed democratic forces among the Palestinians have begun to insist on a mini regime change of their own. I am a political opponent of President Bush and at best a lukewarm supporter of the British Labour Party. But I think it is inaccurate and unfair of the opponents of regime change in Iraq to refer to the Prime Minister as "Bush's poodle". This glib expression has become a substitute for thought, among people who were never conspicuous for originality in the first place. It overlooks the fact Mr Blair pushed a wavering Clinton into taking action in Kosovo, and that he also decided to act on his own to prevent another Rwanda-type bloodbath in Sierra Leone. A British government that thought Afghanistan was only America's problem would have been a shameful and stupid one. There's nothing to apologise about in being an American ally at this moment: it belongs in the better tradition of the Labour Party's internationalism. ISOLATIONISM also overlooks the fact that Britain has friends and interests of its own in the region, as well as a long and deep connection with Iraq, and a correspondingly large stake in the outcome. Just on the material aspect - I love it when people darkly describe the coming intervention as "blood for oil", or equivalent gibberish. Does this mean what it appears to mean, namely that oil is not worth fighting over? Or that it's no cause for alarm that the oil resources of the region are permanently menaced by a crazy sadist who has already invaded two of his neighbours? There is another base rumour in circulation, to the effect that Bush is doing all this for electoral reasons. It's hard to imagine a sillier or nastier suggestion: the American public does not want a war and, as usual, prefers a quiet life. Every newspaper in the country reflects this mood, and prints a huge daily output of misgivings. But one proof of the worthwhileness of this enterprise is its riskiness. Nobody can guarantee a successful outcome, and both Bush and Blair know they could face great reproach for failure. But the long period of unwise vacillation and moral neutrality seems to be drawing to a close, and this is a good thing in itself.

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 4:59:07 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Respond to of 769670

Rumsfeld links al Qaeda to Saddam By Rowan Scarborough The Washington Times \| September 27, 2002 Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of harboring al Qaeda terrorists and aiding their quest for weapons of mass destruction. His charges, based on "evolving" intelligence reports, marked the Bush administration's most detailed account of links between Baghdad and al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terror group that carried out the September 11 attacks. "We do have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," the defense secretary said. "We have what we consider to be credible contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire weapons of mass destruction capabilities." Mr. Rumsfeld's presentation at a Pentagon news conference came the day after White House National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice disclosed for the first time an intelligence report that said Iraq helped train al Qaeda members to use chemical weapons. Her words were reiterated yesterday by White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. "Al Qaeda and Iraq are too close for comfort," he said. The back-to-back disclosures were part of a new White House push to tie Saddam's regime to al Qaeda. If the White House can convince the public that Iraq helps the group that attacked America and killed more than 3,000 persons, the link would strengthen the case for a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Until the past two days, the White House, and chief ally Great Britain, have focused on Baghdad's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction as justification for a pre-emptive attack and the establishment of a new Iraqi government. President Bush is contemplating an invasion but has not yet made a decision or approved a specific war plan, his aides say. Since shortly after September 11, Pentagon civilian hard-liners have pushed the CIA and other intelligence agencies to find and document ties between Iraq and Baghdad. The "linkage" issue was resisted at first by some in the CIA. But Mr. Rumsfeld's aides persisted, and intelligence reports were produced establishing links. "The knowledge that the intelligence community has of the al Qaeda relationship with Iraq is evolving," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "It's based on a lot of different types of sources of varying degrees of reliability. Some of it, admittedly, comes from detainees, which has been helpful, and particularly some high-ranking detainees." Said Miss Rice, "This is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more. We're learning more because we have a lot of detainees who are able to fill in pieces of the puzzle. And when the picture is clear, we'll make full disclosure about it." Mr. Rumsfeld said he had asked the intelligence community to declassify some aspects of the reported Iraq-al Qaeda ties. Upon his return to the Pentagon from a NATO conference in Poland this week, a report was awaiting that detailed links in an unclassified form. The thrust of the administration's case during the past two days is based on: •"Very reliable reporting" of senior-level contacts between al Qaeda and Baghdad going back a decade and occurring recently. •Unidentified al Qaeda detainees and other sources, who say Iraq helped al Qaeda in its quest to acquire weapons of mass destruction and aided training in those weapons. •Discussions by Iraq to provide a haven to al Qaeda members on the run, some of whom already have "found refuge" there. "We know that several of the detainees, in particular some high-ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical-weapons development," Miss Rice said Wednesday night on PBS. "No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11, so we don't want to push this too far," she said. Earlier yesterday, allied aircraft carried out two strikes against air-defense targets in southern Iraq. Both targets threatened pilots enforcing a no-fly zone south of Baghdad, the Pentagon said. Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said pilots used precision-guided munitions to bomb a facility 80 miles south of Baghdad and a target-acquisition radar at a military-civilian airport at the port city of Basra. "The radar site that was struck was on the military side of the field and, in fact, way off the end of the military side of the field," Gen. Pace said, rebutting Iraqi assertions that civilians were killed. "When you take a look at the picture of this, it is out in, basically, desert." This summer, Mr. Rumsfeld authorized commanders to not only bomb air-defense targets that directly threatened pilots, but also command centers that support missile and radar sites. Military sources say the attacks will better prepare the battlefield for a war against Iraq. The Washington Times quoted a U.S. official in 1996 as saying bin Laden was in contact with Iraqi intelligence agents while based near Khartoum, Sudan. He had also reportedly contacted Iranian intelligence officers in Afghanistan about seeking political asylum.

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 5:03:39 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Sounds like this board is a mirror site for the democrappy party. DOC Backfire By David Harsanyi FrontPageMagazine.com \| September 27, 2002 Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Surely most Republicans observed in giddy delight as Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle did his best imitation of Jack Palance on the Senate floor, accusing President Bush of "politicizing" the debate over national security and demanded he apologize for saying that Democrats were "not interested in the security of the American people." Never mind that Daschle's partisan and calculated histrionics backfired pitifully. Disregard the irony of Daschle impulsively basing his theatrical attack on quotes that were taken out of context by his staunch leftist allies at the Washington Post. Republicans shouldn't let his grandstanding achieve its intended purpose. With no political leg to stand on, Daschle is trying to turn the Iraqi debate into a political wrestling match, desperately struggling to rekindle a debate that has already been lost. Why else would a typically unruffled Daschle humiliate himself publicly? Had he finally had enough of playing Wylie Coyote to Bush's Roadrunner? Maybe the Senate Majority Leader thought the inevitable broad congressional support for preemptive strike against Iraq gave him the opportunity to appease the far Left faction of his party without consequence. Perhaps, Daschle was just trying to decelerate the drive for a joint Congressional resolution on the use of force against Iraq. Whatever reasons Daschle had for his uncharacteristic outburst, it is his prevarication on homeland security and Iraqi, not the substance of his vote, that are indeed setting his political interests ahead of the security of the American people. They may do things at a leisurely pace in South Dakota, but you can bet Bismarck won't be the terrorists' next target. Neither will West Virginia. Yet former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd did shed some light on one the Democrats' concerns, charging that Bush's "war strategy seems to have been hatched by a political strategist intent on winning the midterm election at any cost." The Washington Post reported Thursday that more than a dozen Democrats, all of whom requested anonymity, oppose the president's strategy to confront Iraq but are going to support nonetheless for they fear a backlash from voters. Are these heroic Democrats prepared to send Americans to die in a war they supposedly oppose? If so, isn't that a barefaced attempt at "winning the midterm election at any cost"? And how many Americans do you suppose dropped to their knees to thank God that the Supreme Court stopped the Democrat coup attempt of 2000 after reading the transcript of Al Gore speech earlier this week? In a bizarre, and at times incoherent, speech at Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Gore firmly aligned himself with Berkley radicals, temporarily forgetting a multitude of other stands he's taken on Iraq. While many have methodically documented Gore's duplicitous double-talk, his recent adolescent appeasement of the Nader crowd, and above all his accusation that Bush was acting "in a manner calculated to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right," were clearly absurd. Which far right is Gore referring to anyway? The far right of Joseph Lieberman? Or the far right of Tony Blair? Days after Blair lucidly laid out the dangers of allowing an Iraqi terror state continue breathing, Lieberman defended the Bush administration against the charges of politicizing the war: "I don't want to assume a president as commander in chief would take action relating to war — the lives of Americans — for political reasons. I reject that." So as Blair, who is "getting into what they describe as serious trouble with the British electorate" according to Gore, is busying himself with the distinctly non-politicized task of security, Daschle and Gore are battling for the presidential nomination of Democratic Party. While Daschle and Gore stump for votes, Bush deftly builds a coalition, ('coalition' does not mean a unanimous U.N. vote, as some leftists might think), and garners support for a congressional resolution for a preemptive strike against Iraq. Steps that Democrats had fervently requested just a month ago. What about proof? As if there wasn't enough yet, on Wednesday, Condoleezza Rice said al Qaeda operatives have found refuge in Baghdad, and accused Saddam Hussein's regime of helping Osama bin Laden followers develop chemical weapons. Rice said there were contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented and that "there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there's a relationship here." As Democrats run out of excuses, we have to wonder what their motivations truly are. Trent Lott asks: "Who is the enemy here, the president of the United States or Saddam Hussein?" Unfortunately, to men like Gore and Daschle, the answer may not be obvious.

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 5:09:32 PM
From: Dr. Doktor	Respond to of 769670

Teddy Kennedy? I can't beleive anybody listens to that bloated, redfaced druken tomato. He has had no credibility since Chappaquiddick. Murdering bastard. DOC Democrats Not Sold On Iraq Resolution WASHINGTON, Sept. 27, 2002 "War should be a last resort, not the first response." Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass. (CBS) The Bush administration's push for a congressional expression of support for disarming Saddam Hussein is being slowed by Democratic concerns about a blank check to wage war. Trouble brewed for the administration at the United Nations, as well. There, a tough resolution prepared by the United States and Britain to threaten Iraq faces stiff opposition from France, Russia and China, who hold veto power in the U.N. Security Council. "We are a long way from getting an agreement, but we are working hard," Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday as he stepped up U.S. diplomacy internationally. On the home front, senior Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy argued in a speech Friday that the Bush administration has failed to make a persuasive case for going to war against Iraq and that the top U.S. priority should be getting U.N. inspectors back in Iraq, not preparing for unilateral military action. "War should be a last resort, not the first response," Kennedy said in a speech to the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. The administration has not laid out to the American people the "cost in blood and treasure" of a war with Iraq, and "it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that al Qaeda terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again." Three other Democratic senators, Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, told Powell the White House was asking Congress for unprecedented backing. The senators did not question a need to get tough with Iraq for blocking U.N. weapons inspections for nearly four years and refusing to disarm. But they said the congressional resolution the president proposed was far too broad. For instance, Sarbanes said, it would authorize force against Iraq for refusing to return Kuwaiti prisoners held since the Persian Gulf War in 1990-91. Kerry told Powell "you are asking for blanket authority" and Feingold said "we are hearing shifting justifications for using force in Iraq." Powell tried to placate them, saying the Bush administration was unlikely to use force except if Iraq continued to refuse to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. In an op-ed article in Friday's New York Times, House Democratic Leader Dick Gephardt criticized Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republicans for injecting politics into the debate on Iraq. Gephardt said that earlier this week the president "went so far as to say that the Democrat-led Senate is 'not interested in the security of the American people.'" Gephardt also said it was wrong that some Republicans would question Democrats' patriotism for insisting that Congress fully discuss the administration policy. He was also critical of Cheney for saying the country's security efforts would be stronger with more Republicans in Washington. Democrats, he said, are committed to working with the administration to produce a final measure that will have broad bipartisan support. "But the statements by the president and vice president only serve to weaken that process, undermine trust and thwart cooperation," he wrote. If Republicans "continue to use the war as a political weapon, our efforts to address the threat posed by Iraq will fail." Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said the Senate would begin its debate next week, but said the White House proposal was unacceptable. A resolution giving the president the authority to go to war should be backed by the broadest coalition possible, Daschle said after meeting with Senate Democrats. "We've come some distance. We've got a long way to go before that can be achieved," the South Dakota Democrat said. Senate Republicans said they strongly backed the proposal offered by the White House and felt the president had gone far enough in meeting Democratic concerns about its scope. "Any further erosion, I think, is going to be a problem," Senate Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi said. Former President Clinton also weighed in on the Iraq debate Friday, saying he favors getting United Nations backing for the use of force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam. Speaking from Africa where he is on tour, the former president said, "I think we ought to go to the United Nations. I think we ought to get a tough resolution which basically says we'll take Saddam Hussein up on his commitment to free and unfettered inspections." "If he doesn't comply," Mr. Clinton said, a U.N. resolution should make clear that the international community "is authorized to use force." Appearing on CBS' "The Early Show," Mr. Clinton said he thought there was "still a chance" for Mr. Bush and Democrats to come together on a strong congressional resolution. "I don't think we should characterize every difference of policy opinion as a partisan difference," he said.

To: Dr. Doktor who wrote (301515)	9/27/2002 5:28:10 PM
From: Don Hurst	Respond to of 769670

Yup, you have certainly got your 5 replies to your own post perfectly described.