Yo McGrath, At any point while you were typing your last response after searching for a completey bogus article, to vainly try an bolster a sagging case, did it occur to you that the use of depleted uranium occured in the desert, far from population center, that Kuwaiti children were far closer to the action with NO studies by "600 Iraqi Doctors", and WE WEREN'T SHOOTING AT CHILDREN, YOU TWIT!

GUEST: I do agree with the words "sick, sick, sick"... but not the context.

And Bobert, the only reason they printed few letters on the Editorial page is because they took at least 36 column inches to finally agree with Bush. The facing page hade several letters opposing the war.

But the Post, the goddam Post endosing any war (or any Republican for any office), I NEVER thought I'd live to see the day...

Sample sub-titles: "That Iraq has the capacity to threaten vital interests has been clear since 1990...

Yet Mr. Clinton did fail to respond. Saddam Hussein had four years to strenthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions effectively collapsed...

In the end, a war in Iraq would not be primarily a humanitarian exercise, but an operation essential to American security.

The Washington Post... Oh Lord, I lift mine eyes unto the heavens whence cometh my relief... shit! I think I've just now got a sperm count of ... two. And I've got to close to clean off the monitor...