<It's an unfortunate choice of terminolgy. Imprecise language can get you into a lot of trouble. There is no alliance between Iran, Iraq and N. Korea.

Maybe the word "axis" implied connections between these nations that aren't there, but the fact that all three have had policies treating the U.S. as a mortal enemy remains accurate.

All this hassle kind of reminds me of the crap hitting the fan when Reagan correctly identified the former Soviet Union as an "evil empire" The indignant screams from his opposition didn't change the fact that he was absolutely right, as a constant outflow of new information coming from Russia keeps confirming, as well as the testimony from those living in former Soviet satellite nations.

In fact, According James Woolsey (Clinton's CIA chief), N. Korea is not even a terrorist threat anymore.

We're going to let Clinton's CIA chief tell us how it is? What kind of track record does he have?

Woolsey's PBS debate opponent, Charles Maynes, worries that President Bush's bellicose rhetoric is pushing Iran and Iraq into each other's arms, and there are some signs of that. Woolsey characterized these developments as superficial ones.

I don't know about the formal governments of these countries, but the terrorist and fundamentalist movements in these two nations have been aligned for a long time.

...In times of crisis, Americans rally 'round the flag and line up behind their leaders, and this current struggle is no exception. Emboldened by this support, President Bush has toughened his rhetoric, but this bellicose talk has made some Americans uneasy, including a few from his own party.

My personal opinion is that if something Bush says gets violent opposition from the press, his political opponents, and various thug nations, he's probably doing something right. Who from his own party is upset with his speech? Any references?

Thanks for the PBS links.