Oh yeah, a quick third question. Am I the only one that listened to Bush talk and had the old Star Trek spoof of Kirk saying, "We come in Peace, shoot to kill, shoot to kill, we come in peace, shoot to kill" playing mentaly in the back ground? Just me? Oh well... Sorry to have bothered you...

Unfortunately, we have little control over Sharon. If Iraq has and successfully deploys a WMD in Israel, I'd assume his response would be beyond proportional. Like any other speculation about how this will play out though, its pretty much baseless. Pandoras box will be opened and nobody knows what will happen.... unless Saddam steps down snicker snicker phhht bwhahahahaha!!!!!! No Whit not even a snowballs chance, Hussein wants to die as the master. As far as the war on rights goes, it will have to be ratcheted up, our war on radical Islam making us less secure with every deeper engagement with all the mid-east nut jobs er people.

I'm not signed on to this whole war deal yet. The Daily Show hit it pretty well last night.

"The President today met with what he called a 'Coalition of the Willing', and what everyone else called 'England and Spain'."

I'm not a fan of putting lives in danger unless there is a very very <b>very</b> obvious reason. Saddam's a turd and he's got some things he shouldn't have, and Powell's presentation to the U.N. was pretty good, I think, but I just am not convinced yet. I hope Tobiasly is okay.

"Let me see if I've got this straight: One, the French say we're arrogant. Two, the Germans say we're warmongers. Three, the Russians say we don't respect the rule of law. And now four, the Arabs think we're undemocratic. And if that doesn't convince you of the correctness of our position, nothing will."

- anonymous blog comenter

I am saddened and wary. I'm looking for hope.
So, then, an "exiled", scattered, underground Saddam is less threatening? Where is that busboy with a silencer?

After we hit, then clean up the dead and snuff the immediate violence...and then snuff more, and then more, then retaliate, then snuff more...
I heard Dana Priest on MPR last night, discussing the US occupation and longterm democratic rebuilding of Iraq. Hmmm. Her book,"The Mission" sounds interesting. She looks at the expanded roles of the military, post conflict, as humanitarian coordinators, civic managers, cultural diplomats, and republic builders. Roles they have increasingly assumed and roles that they may not yet be trained,equipted to carry out. Anybody read it?

Hey, I think we all reach that point in our lives where we alone hold the glorious light of truth, and everyone else must bask in the darkness of their pitiful ignorance.

Eventually, though, we're wrong enough times when we were sure we were right that we begin to get some perspective and grow up.

Perhaps our administration just needs to grow up?

With respect to "The Mission":

ahh ... I don't read that liberal claptrap. (everyone around here knows I stick exclusively to conservative claptrap) ;)

With respect to Juju's comment about "growing up":

As far as maturity in govt. is concerned ... despite being one of the younger countries in the world, we've had a stable form of govt. for a lot longer, for the most part. We must be doing something right.

Hey, I've learned my lesson when it comes to referring to entire countries as people. That's why I specifically avoided it this time.

Anyway, I wouldn't exactly call the Bush adminitstration "stable".

Hell, man, the only thing crazier than that would be referring to entire corporations as people. That would be ridic- hey, waitaminute..

What would be your benchmark for stability? Hopefully not the Clinton administration ... GHW Bush? Reagan? Kennedy? or some other lost in the mists of history?

Not causing the entire world to hate us?

You sure do have a funny definition of "stable".

Well, I'm a funny kind of guy. :)

Anyway, she didn't ask for a definition, just a benchmark.

I'm sorry, did you say causing the hate or revealing it?