I really don't know where Democratic remarks in 1998/2002 come into this. I'm a little scared of asking, too.

What annoyed me about Rivkin's paragraph is that he didn't support what he said. I said that I could infer what his reasons were, given his background. But I had to run off and Google him to get that. And that's not enough to back up his sentence. Should everything be referenced and footnoted to death? No. But if someone of august legal standing intends to make a point, I expect a little more than "I believe this to be false". He says that context is extremely important, two lines later it's irrelevant to his own claims. It doesnt convince or interest me.
This is at most a minor point about a minor point. I

Wahey!

"I disagree. And furthermore......" - Ralph Waldo Emerson, "The Plumber"