I think I might be a little confused here.
Ferret, from what I can see from your posts, I can see that you certainly don't trust the President (and heck, I think we've all learned not to trust politicians in general), but your comment about "old rich white men" seems to be somewhat heavy-handed. You wouldn't be suggesting that if our president was a young poor African-American woman, we wouldn't be fighting terrorism and that there wouldn't be corruption in our government, would you?
What mess
would we be in right now? And how does the fact that our presidents have all been "old rich white men" translate into a justification that we should or should not attack Iraq, or that this is all a smokescreen to cover up domestic problems, or anything else, besides implying that Bush's policy is an extension of "the white man keeping us down"?
However, I do agree with what you said about the weapons inspectors. If anyone out there thinks that the weapons inspectors will find anything in Iraq after all this time, they're either incredibly naive or they really don't give Hussein any kind of credit for being a brilliant manipulator and, dare I say it, politician. What such a lack of evidence means, however, is an entirely different story. Will people be trusting enough of Iraq to actually believe that they don't have chemical or nuclear weapons, or will people believe that they're just hiding everything, as seems quite obvious by the quick 180 Hussein has done on this issue?
train, I think you're right on the money here. If there are countries or individuals harboring known terrorists who refuse to turn them over to justice, that is not just a threat to America's national security, that is a threat to any nation or organization that happens to support a policy or idea that that particular terrorist or terrorist group opposes.
In regards to who the US can go after in terms of being a threat to us, I don't think that America should go and bomb someone just because someone says that they don't like us, even if that person is the leader of the country and they say that they would enjoy seeing Sept. 11th images 365 days a year. Unless that nation actually has the means to initiate such an assault, there are other procedures that America can take in those situations.
And why does it seem like everyone just assumes that Bush has all this unilateral power? He's not a king. What, there's no legislative or judicial branches anymore? Who's been giving Bush all this power anyway? Not me. And I doubt it was you. Last I heard, the President still needs approval to start a war, it's not that Bush can simply say, "OK, today, let's bomb...(throws a dart at a map of the Middle East)...Qatar!"
Suddenly, I bet my signature seems so much more ironic...