The Mercury News published this editorial today.

I sent them this:

Your editorial of January 29 reads:



"...The administration now must make a full accounting to the U.N. Security Council. Even then,
and even if the evidence backs up the assertion that Iraq hasn't disarmed, a step-by-step approach
that includes a firm deadline for Iraqi compliance is far preferable to a head-long rush to war.
But the president made it clear Monday night that he's not interested in such a process,
something he's never fully embraced.
Prepare for war."

Does it bother anyone that the press has been complaining about Bush's "rush to war" for over six months
now?

Iraq has HAD a firm deadline. Several of them. And blown them all. He has made a mockery of every
agreement he has signed since the end of the Gulf War. Why would another line in the sand be useful?
And if another line was drawn, and he was given another six months, and, as is likely, failed to meet
THAT deadline, would you support action then? Or, as I suspect, would you be looking to draw yet
another line?