You know, it's funny you should say that Doug. I was thinking the same thing. Then the other day I heard some commentator -- a real chest-thumper, usually -- talk about how we shouldn't attack North Korea because they were more dangerous.

*ahem* Am I the only one that see the irony and hypocrasy in that statement?

Bush the Lesser DOES have two wars going if he attacks Iraq. Or at least some of us haven't forgotten the servicemen still risking their lives in Afghanistan.

On another topic, has anyone read the latest US proposal to the UN? It requires immediate action on weapons declaration and inspectors -- the time frame is pretty tight, but the desire to move quickly seems appropriate. But then it only gives the inspectors 60 days in Iraq to complete the inspection!

I don't get it. How can the inspectors possibly do a reasonably thorough job in that time frame? I know the White House is talking about how it would be most advantageous to attack at the beginning of the year... but they seem to be deliberately setting up a situation that won't do any good and won't get them the justification they need to attack. Nor does it get inspectors back in Iraq for the long term.

Any thoughts anyone?