Bobert: you evidently read the post I wrote concerning our (the U.S.) position after the president's speech to the U.N. We are out of it. The ball is in the U.N.'s court. It also is in Saddam's court. It is up to the U.N. to enforce it's resolutions. If they don't, resolutions mean nothing to any nation. If Saddam refuses to abide by the agreements he made to end Desert Storm, the U. N. should assume that the Desert Storm conflict is not over, and U. N. forces should go into Iraq and take Saddam out. Now who do you suppose will comprise the majority of U. N. forces? Who will likely spend most of the money to finance the U. N. effort? Who will supply the majority of the weapons required? The U. S.? Yep!

I didn't catch the Letterman show Peg. Did Dave ask Clinton what had changed since 1998 that caused him to change his opinion as to what course the U. S. should take in regard to Iraq? In 1998 he was proposing military action against Iraq. So was Tom Daschle, the Hawk who suddenly has become a Dove. I doubt that was among the many "good" questions Dave posed to the former president though.

DougR