According to Woolsey in this debate, N. Korea still has weapons of mass destruction but is no longer a springboard for terrorism.

The most sensational aspect of this debate, imo, was Woolseys apparent revelation that U.S. policy toward Iraq pivots on two options: strike now or strike later.

Woolsey goes on to say that if the U.S. were successful in deposing Saddam, we would be as popular on the streets of Baghdad as we are now on the streets of Kabul.

Maynes is a little more cautious, and notes that President Bush's tough words appear to be pushing Iran and Iraq into each others arms, a trend Woolsey sees as not a durable one.

But the two men appeared to disagree most about the possible ramifications of a U.S. attempt to oust Saddam. Maynes thinks there should/would be an independent Kurdistan, an idea Woosey didn't like at all, claiming that development would alienate a low-profile but key player in the geo-politics of the region: Turkey, for whom the issue of an independent Kurdistan is a red flag.

sp