Oh...one more thing. As an actual threat, Saddam may well be negligible. Nonetheless, I submit that, if Mr. Bush is to pursue the policy he has outlined in his speeches since September 11, 2001, he has no choice but to attack Iraq first. Otherwise, every "enlightened" commentator, European, American or otherwise, will charge him with inconsistency in keeping a blind eye turned to the violations of the nation that is already the primary example of American apathy in the '90's. If we count the nations whom we have allowed to flaunt the strictures of the past few decades, Iraq tops the list. North Korea may pose the greater threat, but Iraq has flaunted itself against vain American threats for far longer. If this nation is to regain any semblance of credibility against so-called rogue nations, it cannot allow Saddam Hussein to successfully win another toss.

This is not to say I am happy with the policy of the Bush administration thus far towards North Korea. But it seems that, at this early stage in the game, one must admit a certain degree of pragmaticism--as things currently stand, we simply are not capable of dealing with both North Korea and Iraq without suffering high casualties in men and political capital. To win, and win well (that is, with the least damage either to us or the nations we liberate), we need to be able to throw overwhelming force against our enemies. I hope and pray that Bush has a plan for North Korea (after all, my family lives near the west coast, and the range of North Korean missiles is only increasing)...but taking Iraq on first seems to be Bush's only choice.

In my humble opinion, that is.