The debate on Iraq is getting downright kooky. If I understand this right, the U.S. government, along with cheerleaders like columnist Charles Krauthammer, wants the U.N. to declare that Iraq was in "material breach" of previous resolutions, and then to authorize the use of force in the event that Iraq breaches a U.N. resolution. What I keep not seeing is whether that use of force can be tied to one of the previous breaches. I have a hunch that the authority the Congress gave to the president may do just that unless the U.N. specifically says you can only use force in the case of a future material breach, which is what the French seem to be proposing. In the back of my mind, I like to think that (a) the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to fall for the "let me hit him if he crosses that line that he's already crossed" argument, and that (b) the U.S. isn't so stupid as to make it.

It's looking like the Bush camp is getting worried that Saddam Hussein might actually comply with the weapons inspections this time around, so their trying to prop open a back door just in case. I don't see any other reason. It's not like you're going to lose much more face than you have already by redrawing a line in the sand and saying that, this time, you really, REALLY mean it. The alternative is saying we meant it before, but we didn't get around to it, and that's got to be equally as embarassing.

I'm not even getting into whether or not invading is a good or bad idea. I just don't really want to get into that right now. Salman Rushdie tried to make a more humanitarian case for regime change in today's Washington Post as well, but I think that may be an even more hypocritical precedent than the preemption doctrine laid out by GWB a month or so ago. I keep hoping that there's some very classified justification for this whole mess that is being omitted in the interest of national security, but I'm not getting my hopes up.