How about the 1994 Iraqi attempt to assassinate Mr. Scowcroft's dear friend, President George H.W. Bush?

Check out our policy on assassination. Remember, "terrorist" isn't defined as by what is done to you. It is defined objectively.

And how about the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993?

Please name the Iraqi terrorist associated with that.

How about Saddam's current practice of bestowing gifts of $25,000 cash on the families of Palestinian homicide bombers, a huge amount of money in that society?

Isn't it strange how such a "huge" amount of money results in ZERO Iraqi terrorists blowing themselves up?

Leaving aside Saddam's probable connection to Sept. 11 (which I've discussed in previous columns), these seem to be -- no, they are -- blatant terrorist acts affecting Americans.

"probable connection". No facts. In fact, all evidence (including the names and nationalities of the terrorists) seem to indicate a SAUDI involvement. But we're not talking about invading Saudi Arabia, you want to invade Iraq based upon Saddam's "probable" involvement.

Even a non-foreign policy wonk could grasp that it's smarter -- and far safer -- to free Iraq before the world's most destructive ruler acquires the world's most destructive weapon.

Gotta love that hyperbole. Is Saddam is the "World's Most Destructive Ruler", what has he destroyed?

I can name 5 other, current, dictators with a higher body count.

But, this is the US. Informed political discussion isn't the fashion.

Rather, innuendo, hyperbole and manic nationalistic jingoism is the standard.

No, it is not "smarter" nor is it "far safer" to invade Iraq now (before Saddam develops nukes).

Doing so now would legitimize all the fundamentalist sects over there that are claiming that the US is intent upon turning their countries into vassal states of the Great Satan.

And he's mixing goals.

#1. Free the people of Iraq from Saddam's evil grip.

#2. Stop Saddam before he gets nukes and is a threat to us.

Two different goals with two different solutions.

Again, if we go into Iraq, we're going to be there for YEARS and our people WILL DIE at the hands of fanatical suicidal bombers. During those years, the anti-US sects in the OTHER countries will be gaining political power and we'll have a huge disaster brewing.

But, what the fuck? You can always blame the disaster on someone else and you'll look good for recommending swift, decisive action.

I'd be more supporting of his plans if Kenneth Adelman were to move to Iraq (with his family) the month after our invasion. And stay there.

It's easy to advocate war when you're thousands of miles from harm's reach.

It's easy to overlook the flaws in your "plan" when someone else will be the one with his life cut short by a fundamentalist bomber.

That's better than 3000 people killed (non-combat, might I remind you) in the Towers?

Okay, once again because it seems that certain people have forgotten some basic facts.

#1. The hijackers were Saudi Arabian.

#2. Their leader (Osama) is Saudi Arabian.

#3. Saddam is in Iraq.

#4. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia.

Two choices. Clean out the rat's nest, or leave it entirely.

Are you talking about occupying the ENTIRE middle east? Because that is what you're saying.

Get a map.

Find Afghanistan (the place we've already invaded).

Find Saudi Arabia (the place the terrorists came from).

Find Iraq (the place that we're talking about invading).

Hell, everyone in that region (except Israel) already hates us. Witness the street celebrations held by "the people" on the Sept. 11 bombings.

Uzbekistan. Tell me that they hate us. They're over there.

Every place there was a documented celebration of September 11, I agree with Jerry Pournelle: go in, give an hour's warning, bulldoze the ground, annoint it with salt, and errect a monument to our victims.

And I cannot lose any more respect for anyone who is so willfully ignorant as to support that point of view. Or do you for one moment imagine that EVERY person over there is represented by those you saw celebrating?

But who cares. It's not like they're really people anyway. Let's just wipe them all out.

Life sure is simple when your thought process ends at "them" and "us".