DougR,

I know you won't agree with me, but what the hey...

WMDs are a cover story, a smokescreen. Any country you want to name either has them or could have them in a couple of months, if you include everything Rumsfeld includes in the WMD category. It's a bad excuse among many. For example:

Iraq's "aggressive tendencies" and "ambitions beyond its borders" were last in evidence twelve years ago, and are only being highlighted by our government now because it's convenient. One could easily cite Israel as another example of aggressive tendencies coupled with WMDs, even though I'm generally sympathetic to Israel's position. India and Pakistan would be other examples, which were much more recently "hot." Iran should be mentioned. And, of course, several former Soviet republics, which are just as aggressive and are far more likely to have real WMDs. But our government doesn't suggest that we have to go to war with them, right now, before election day.

The argument that Hussein is a monster doesn't fly either. Reagan and Bush I gave him money and equipment when he was already obviously a sociopathic megalomaniac. Guess what: they didn't care! It was only after he disobeyed US instructions and invaded Kuwait that suddenly his monstrous behavior became intolerable to the US government. Then the war came, the accords, and his subsequent refusal to comply with UN directives, which has been going on for years. Suddenly, just before a US election in which the Republicans are desperate to pick up seats, it becomes super-urgent to do something about this ongoing situation. Can't wait six weeks; Saddam might make some mustard gas! We must resolve this NOW!

Could it be that the administration wants the entire national discourse to be taken up with war on Iraq so domestic issues (like the massive deficits brought on by foolish tax cuts that ignored the possibility of an emergency) won't be discussed? Furthermore, Bush lays before congress a ridiculously expansive piece of war legislation, saying "the President will have the authority to do whatever he wants to secure peace and stability in the Middle East." This gives Dems two choices: sign, and give Bush carte blanche, or look like obstructionists.

The proposed war has nothing to do with WMDs, and nothing to do with the farcically trumped-up connections to September 11th. It is

1) an opportunity to keep the "war on terror" interesting to joe TV watcher, who is tired of us never winning any battles or killing any of the important foes.

2) an opportunity to consolidate more power in the hands of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government

3) an opportunity to expunge Bush I's great failure to effect regime change in Iraq

4) an opportunity to take revenge for September 11--never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with it,

and

5) an opportunity to obscure the issues in just about every important state and congressional election by dominating news coverage with one story.

Must...get...off...soapbox! Must...listen...to...folk...music! arrggh!