The most remarkable thing about this thorough and convincing article is how moderate it is by traditional American standards of international relations. No where is it rejected that we should act in self-defense whenever attacked; no where is it argued that we should negotiate with Saddam Hussein. The argument that we should try one or two other avenues (inspections, new resolutions) before resorting to an invasion followed by occupation and that we should try to construct some kind of international consensus before engaging is military action that is not in self-defense used to be required just for getting into the debate.

Unfortunately, the Democrats probably feel helpless since their main argument against war since Vietnam has been that war costs lives (and maybe money). Since recent wars are about as dangerous for us as a knitting party (and about as dangerous for them as an Afghan wedding), respectable opposition doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on. Somehow, somewhere, we seem to have lost the idea that you need a better reason for going to war than 'the president's favorite secret agents think ruler X is dangerous."

Can't argue much with what dende says. Things aren't boding well, though, for this one, and I hope with all of my heart that once we do go in, Hussein doesn't use his gas, etc, on our troops or on his neighbors (Israel and Kuwait, mostly).