A week's Reprieve?

Well, I'm ever so happy to be proven wrong on the timing.

Unfortunately, it looks like a couple week's reprieve at best. And I was glad to see at least some real questions asked instead of the usual leading, softball fluff.

The problem was, no matter what question was asked, the answer was Iraq, WMD, Saddam's not disarming. It was like a loop tape. It was like a surface film, impenetrable to deeper thoughts or arguments of cause and effect. As if insulated by some kind of mental prophylactic against complexity, he had made up his mind and that was that.

And seeing a man in control of nuclear weapons who's incapable of properly pronouncing what they are still scares me stiff. I'd like to see the camera shot over his shoulder when he does that...actually, no, I don't.

While I don't disagree that Saddam must be disarmed, how that policy is conducted, and how it is justified, affect it's credibility. Credibility affects the viability of every endeavor. It's sad, but Bush is basically trashing 50 years worth of Diplomatic credibility by the goals and policy he's set and the means used in their pursuit. Prior history seems to be totally off the table when it comes to our involvement in how Hussein and Osama became so dangerous. These histories are not unknown abroad, and are finally becoming more known here at home.  To make regime change at will the centerpiece of American policy, and then to pursue it in a fashion that guarantees mass destruction and death, we are told this is done to "preserve the peace".

The same way Bush has  motivated America's friends to complain and protest, and they're our allies and trading partners, how much is he motivating those who already dislike us?  It seems as if this calculation is not just ignored, but ridiculed.

The fact that so much energy must be expended trying to restrain W is a loss to efforts that could be focused on more pressing threats,.

Hello, NORTH KOREA?