] It's no surprise that Iraq should have come up at Mr. Bush's
] first national security meetings -- after all, the United States
] was patrolling the skies above Iraq to enforce "no-fly" zones.
] Nor is it surprising that the Bush team should have contemplated
] regime change: That was the declared policy of the United States,
] supported by the Clinton administration and Congress.
 . . .
] The wisdom of waging war in Iraq is a legitimate and important
] topic of political debate. But the Democratic candidates do no
] favors to their positions when they accept, uncritically, a
] half-unsurprising and half-dubious account, for no better reason
] than that it fits their prejudices.

Amen. It infuriates me to hear political candidates accuse the President of "misleading" people, when those candidates are doing their level best to do misleading of their own! Hypocrites. To accuse someone of "deliberately lying" is a serious charge, and I have no intention of voting for anyone who tosses that kind of language around for no other reason than political posturing.

If a candidate wants to disagree with the Administration, fine. If they say they have an idea for a better and wiser plan, I'm all for hearing it. But this mudslinging crap does nothing for them except to lose my vote.

Mr. O'Neill and Iraq