Michael Bragg – The Iraqi Game Show at Liberty For All:
Here is what I see as a possible scenario. Saddam has offered to hold "negotiations" concerning allowing UN inspectors back in. I do not feel Bush or Congress will buy it. However, if he were to allow inspections to resume, that excuse for attacking him will have been eliminated. I do not believe he will unconditionally comply with the resumption of inspections however so that will be just enough of a reason for Bush to attack. By the way, do not look for it to be debated in Congress and a formal declaration of war announced as our law requires. We will simply wake up one day and it will have begun. We will have little or no support from the world, and to the contrary there will be outrage from all quarters.
Alan Bock – Choosing Up Sides at Antiwar.com:
The evidence that Saddam Hussein is currently harboring terrorists planning to attack the United States is scant to non-existent. No problem. He hasn't invaded any neighbors lately, and most of his neighbors don't want a war. No problem. He may have weapons of mass destruction but he hasn't used them or even rattled them. No problem. The evidence that he had anything at all to do with the 9/11 attacks consists of a single meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi diplomat, whose existence is in dispute and the contents of which (if it happened) nobody claims to know about. No problem. He's a nasty guy and that's enough.
I am a liberal, not a libertarian but I must agree with the libertarian view on the Iraq invasion by Bush. Bush obviously has another agenda because this war is not to protect us from a demonstrated aggression. The Nurembourg Doctrine prohibits pre-emptive wars.