When I drive by "No War in Iraq" signs, I have some ambivalence about giving them the thumbs up. I don't want to go to war by my nature. I don't want children of any country buried in unmarked graves in lands far from home or sent home in body bags.

But Saddam is one of the most destabilizing forces in the world right now.

I've thought if the signs said, "Disarm Bush and Saddam through International Cooperation," I might be honking madly. I can't support the war as it's been laid out, or, in fact, war at all in this case since we're opposed to the dictator not the people.

But I also can't wipe away Saddam's blame along with several other key countries (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Paraguay, etc.) that are part of the connection of money, people, and opportunity that have led to the state of terrorism in the world.

I didn't elect Bush. We didn't elect Bush. And he's taking Reagan's legacy -- of all things to have to praise the Great Communicator -- and his father's and Clinton's and squandering it. Thank God for Jimmy Carter and his essay today.

Could you ever imagine France, Germany, and Russia standing shoulder to shoulder over avoiding a military action? Three nations that have spilt more blood on each other's territory than possibly any others in history are all agreed.

The moral imperative is to continue to remove Saddam, to push for dismantling the means by which terrorism spreads even among our so-called allies, and to not engage in international war crimes ourselves.

Even tech journalists are coming out against Bush's war! It is nice to see so many people start to stand up and be counted. Read More

Thanks for taking the time to write up your thoughts. I think that it is important to speak up. It helps that we think alike. The threat and if needed the use of military force against Hussine could have been put together in a way that I would have supported, but Bush is a disaster. As Nicolas Kristof wrote:

"So let's take stock of how our invasion of Iraq is going. The Western alliance is ferociously strained, NATO is paralyzed, America is resented by millions, the United Nations is in crisis, U.S. pals like Tony Blair are being skewered at home, North Korea has exploited our distraction to crank up plutonium production, oil prices have surged, and the world financial markets have sagged. And the war hasn't even begun yet."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/opinion/07KRIS.html

Bush is incompetent.

"But Saddam is one of the most destabilizing forces in the world right now.

Couldn't agree more. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that Bush is more destabilizing - he has more power, more money, more supporters and is seemingly even more determined to hasten armageddon.

You're right to point to Carter's piece too. Strongly worded, clearly argued, bang on target. I'm still wondering why he fails to cite his clear source and inspiration for this piece, though. He lays out a good case, but the argument and key points are not exactly original.

I tried digging into this, with some rambling commentary, over here

Greatly enjoying your blog, btw - creeping up my personal 'check daily' list.

I'm curious how Bush is a destabilizing force. Its apparent to me that we are suffering through times created in part to Clinton's ambivalence.

Even Clinton/Gore knew what kind of threat Saddam was and is. Bill Bennett's article on FoxNews.com references their own beliefs on Saddam.

He, Saddam, has been ignoring the UN resolutions for years. He doesn't understand resolution but he does understand military power.
By the way how is it that arguably the worst president in recent memory, Jimmy Carter, is now an expert on foriegn affairs. Carter had a terrible record inside and outside the U.S. Hey, at least he can look forward to building new houses in Iraq.

Remember, other than slavery, fascism, communism and nazism, war never solved anything.
Support the troops and support Glenn's pdf problem. I have owned the book for over a year and it has helped me out on numerous occasions.
bigbiggeek.com