Reply #50: I understand that you're really sure about this

[wtmusic]

but you're unconvincing about why.

The gist so far seems to be that since Bush lied once, he would lie about everything. The problem is that with the Byrd interpretation Bush's lies are irrelevant. It's not up to Bush to determine what 'an imminent, sudden, and direct attack' is--it's a finding of law, one which would never hold up.

Because Kerry is my #2 man, I'm going to give you a hand up and suggest that there were other reasons not directly related to the text itself he rejected it. But until I see a compelling reason not to, I'm going to have to believe this is damning stuff for the Kerry camp, and will have to be addressed.