The problem with the War on Drugs are all the half-measures.

I'm from Singapore. We have little-to-no drug scene to speak of. However, I suspect our solution will be too harrowing for even the most hard right law-n-order US voter to stomach.

We have mandatory death penalties for drug trafficking. And I don't mean for kilos of coke. Nope, we hang drug dealers and traffickers for even small quantities of drugs. How small? 250g of meth = death. 30g of morphine = death. End result? Little to no drug crime. Drug cartels try to avoid transitting thru Singapore cos we don't care if u're only in transit. We catch u with the stuff in an airport lounge waiting for your connecting flight to Amsterdam? We string u up. The closest thing we have to a serious drug problem is valium abuse.

The addicts dont get off easy either. We imprison addicts. Possession for the purpose of consumption is criminalised. We give our addicts longer sentences than you give your dealers. Hell, we even imprisoned a couple of teenagers for smoking pot while they were overseas (hair samples).

Its probably too late for you folks to try this in the US. Not unless you're ok with wiping out a significant proportion of your inner city youth. We didn't have to make those kind of hard choices. This stark legal regime was put into place before widespread drug trafficking could take root.

The moral of the story? You will never win the War on Drugs until you make the consequences of drug dealing and consumption so utterly horrifying that even the prospect of lifting yourself from poverty is not a sufficient incentive. For America, that boat has sailed. You're probably better off with just legalising the stuff. Your half-*ss War on Drugs is an exercise in futility.

I'm no nuclear physicist, but I don't think that would have worked. The IAEA would have insisted on inspecting the supposeduly seized WMDs. If I remember correctly, it is possible to subject the fissible material to tests to determine their point of origin. It probably wouldnt look too good if the tests came back "Made in America"

Hearsay?

If Tenet had told Richer "I forged the letter", that would be evidence that Tenet said those words, but would be hearsay as to the question of whether Tenet forged the letter.

However, Tenet told Richer to forge the document. Once again that is evidence that Tenet said those words, and here the words are key. The words eqaute to the order, so Richer's evidence is NOT hearsay to the question of whether Tenet ordered him to forge the letter.

BTW, to forestall Bush's enablers, do not confuse the word "evidence" with conclusive or definitive evidence. There is evidence that Tenet ordered Richer to forge the letter. There may be contrary evidence out there that shows Richer is making this up, or that Tenet had gone "off reservation" and Bush had no knowledge of Tenet's illegal acts. I repeat my call for an inquiry to get to the bottom of this. Incompetence is one thing. Malicious deception is quite another.

No offence, but demanding nothing less than conclusive proof of these shenanigans is unrealistic. If the Administration was minded to forge evidence of WMDs, I seriously doubt that they would commit the orders to paper, or record it in the minutes of meeting etc.

Approach the evidence logically. We know that the letter was forged, the only question is who dunnit. The CIA officer claims to have been instructed by Tenet to forge the document, and that he did so. Weigh the credibility of the opposing sides. Does he have a reason to lie? Maybe its a precursor to a tell-all book or he's angling for $$$ for an interview. Do not confuse the credibility of the witness with the credibility of his advocate. Against that you have an administration that demonstrably (i) was wrong about WMDs, (ii) really wanted to take down Saddam, (iii) lead by a President who prefers to 'go with his gut' than re-consider his positions, and (iv) has shown a tendency towards downplaying evidence contrary to establised views while playing up supportive evidence.

I recognise that its a big step from mere catastrohpic incompetence to actual malicious deception. Don't kid yourselves, there IS a world of difference. Its a glowing line in the sand that nobody crosses accidentally (as opposed to say the murky line in the sand between interrogation and torture).

Whatever view you make take, I think we can at least agree that these accusations are very serious in nature and should be the subject of a full-blown inquiry, preferrably Congressional or at the very least by the DOJ. There is a lot of fatigue on the ground because this Administration has been bouncing from one scandal to another (WMD, Katrina, Abu Graib, Guantanamo, Torture, Renditions, Wiretaps, Plame, Gonzales/Gooding's Prosecutor Fiasco etc) and at this point most Americans just want to wash their hands of the incumbent President. Nevertheless, I believe that America owes it to itself to discover the truth. If Bush is vindicated, so be it, my world view can survive an incompetent President, as opposed to a deceitful one. If Bush is guilty, he deserves to be impeached, regardless of how little time he has left.