...and then wages the war based on that argument, it's not too much to ask to see the proof of the argument. When the proof is there, it has been quite obvious: Germany invades Poland, Japan bombs Hawaii, Napoleon invades everybody, British regulars shoot Minutemen. These are things argued over as to who did what to whom first, but there is no quarrel over the existence of dead bodies and burnt-out buildings.

Yet in this case the evidence eludes us. Perhaps it's been spirited away, but perhaps it wasn't there in the first place.

To say that Mr. Bush should be considered innocent until proven guilty is to use the language of criminal investigation, which coming from one of his advocates is, to put it mildly, troubling. Do Mr. Bush's supporters believe he needs this kind of defense?

Mr. Bush has an obligation to the nation he leads to make damn sure he's innocent of wrongdoing when he leads us into war, because he takes us all with him. If he does so under false pretenses, he makes us all accessories to his actions and agents of his ambition. If he does so on the basis of fervent wishes rather than known facts, we are accessories merely to manslaughter and reckless endangerment, rather than second- and first-degree murder.

It's not too much to need to see the proof, and if it's not forthcoming, to ask why. It's not too much to expect an honest answer, if our leadership is honest leadership.

Regards--
Mary Anne