Despite my derogatory reference to the Idiot Mothers For Global Peace below, I do want to say that I don't consider those who oppose the war idiots. Just those ladies.

I think Bush did a good job on Iraq, though others will disagree. I think it all comes down to "job doing what?" People looking for new evidence obviously came up disappointed. I'm not sure what those looking for a "smoking gun" are looking for precisely. I don't think there will be one in regards to Iraq as whatever links exist are infirm. For those of you looking for a smoking gun in regards to his building up weapons with intent to use them, what precisely are you looking for? The weapons inspectors to find something? Hussein has become very skilled at making sure that doesn't happen. Do you honestly doubt that Hussein intends to build up his arsenal? If so, what for? Even if he's not capable of attacking us directly he can pull all the same tricks that the leader of North Korea presently is. Those who point to Korea as a reason why we shouldn't be so obsessed with Iraq are, it seems to me, missing a rather large point.

Maybe you think it's perfectly fine if our ability to move and operate throughout the world is hindered by nuclear threat because you don't think we should be acting aggressively anyway. Maybe not, but can you imagine how much tougher Afghanistan would have been if Hussein decided to pull a stunt and making threats about an agressive military campaign in his back yard? What about if he invades Kuwaitt again and threatens a nuclear response if we interfere?

For my part, there is no leader presently more isolated, ambitious, and dangerous than Saddam Hussein. North Korea may be isolated and dangerous, but they are not ambitious. China is dangerous, but neither isolated nor ambitious (despite what many right-wingers argue). Saudi Arabia is dangerous, but neither isolated or ambitious. The ambition is important because it helps explain what they will do with the power once they have it. Do they intend to use it defensively as China has? China is largely a protectionist government with no real ambitions outside what it already considers its own (Tibet and Taiwan). North Korea just wants food and a little respect. Hussein, on the other hand, wants power and as much of it as possible and as far reaching as possible. Since he's isolated, there are little diplomatic relationships with the US that he could harm. When his days are numbered, and they will be someday whether we attack now or not, he will have nothing to lose. Do we want to wait until he has the better weaponry before that loose cannon lines up to fire?

Prior to 9/11, I opposed invading Iraq vigorously. I even supported lifting sanctions. If there's one thing that 9/11 taught me, it's that we can't wait around for things to keep getting worse before we act. I was more or less supportive of Clinton's lackadaisical approach to bin Laden, believing that there was more harm in going to war than he could possibly accomplish. Besides, he knows if he does that we will bring the wrath of god down upon him, doesn't he? Apparently he didn't. Who knows what's going through Hussein's head and who wants to gamble Hussein's virtue and capability against American lives?

These are questions I can't answer. Until I can, I support the invasion. There are others with other questions that I believe are answered, but at least they're asking the questions.

What gets my goat about Idiot Mothers For Global Peace is that to them there are no questions and there is no discussion. They oppose it because war kills children and other living things. There is no arguing with that and, quite frankly, that's not an even remotely sustainable position. The likes of ANSWER don't have a problem with war or bloodshed or dead children, just America, which is ten degrees worse. But I recognize that there are a lot of people with more brains than IMFGP and more heart than ANSWER. I don't understand their point of view all that well, but I do accept it as earnest.