Hey, Doug, it's been a long time since we've had something to disagree on! I did listen to part of Mr. Bush's speech. I heard him say, "Why should we be so concerned about Iraq, when there are other countries who have such terrible weapons?" A good question...and how did he answer it? "Because these weapons are all in one place." Now, am I missing something, or is that a stupid, mindless, non-answer? I also heard him say, "Why do we have to act right now?" Another good question, since we've known about Saddam Hussein's monomania and weapons of mass destruction for better than a decade. Why does it have to be now, before the United Nations has a chance to act, before we figure out just what the hell we're going to do with a post-Saddam Iraq, before--gee, whiz--the elections? And the answer, "Because the situation is getting worse and not better." Well, that answers the old urgency question for me, for sure.

I mean, I can think of a dozen places in the world where there are bad leaders who have threatened their neighbors, and things aren't getting any better with them. Let's go get 'em!   Oh, and some of them have "weapons of mass destruction", too. Did you listen to some of the rhetoric coming out of Pakistan and India? They already have nukes. How about Colombia, whose leaders have been getting fat off the drug trade for years? They've killed a whole lot more Americans than the number who died on 9/11. Why don't we invade them?

Doug, I would just ask you one thing: consider -- just consider -- the possibility that President Bush may not be telling the American people the whole truth. Presidents have been known to lie to the American people. Look at LBJ, who managed to get Congress to give him war powers after telling everybody that the ARVN attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin, when they didn't. Look at Nixon...or your friend Clinton, for that matter. It happens. And it might be happening now. In which case, a whole lot of people are going to die, for no reason at all. So what else is new?

And by the way, I'm NOT suggesting that Saddam Hussein is not a rapacious dictator, or that he doesn't have chemical and biological weapons. I'm suggesting that the reason the President is asking Congress to abdicate their constitutional responsibility may have very little to do with those particular facts, and may have very much to do with a very different agenda that has much more to do with oil and power and GHWB and his friends than it does with patriotism and "keeping America safe."

(Just didn't want you to think that because I've been so quiet I suddenly became a Republican, Doug!)

Aloha,
Mark