From the editorial page of the San Jose Mercury:

There isn't much doubt. The Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein not only is in clear violation of United Nations orders to disarm, but is intent on expanding its array of weapons of mass destruction.



Secretary of State Colin Powell reinforced that point in a methodical case he presented to the UN Security Council Wednesday. He did so without resorting to exaggeration, a rhetorical tool he didn't need. Denials by the Iraqi delegation were, on their face, ludicrous.

The question now becomes: What next?

Comment in this space has pushed for continued inspections, giving Iraq a firm deadline and waiting until that time to push the case for further action. Powell effectively demolished that argument. Further inspections aren't likely to expand beyond what now is known. Saddam will continue to dodge and weave. Nothing will be gained.

Conventional wisdom suggests that the only other option is war, a point vigorously argued by the Bush administration. But even so strong a case as that made by Powell on Tuesday, aimed at convincing not only reluctant allies but also the American public, was not enough to justify a full, pre-emptive attack.

Many countries of the world can be perceived by their neighbors or by distant governments as threats. World order demands that military action be taken not when somebody is a perceived threat as, say, Pakistan and India appear to be to one another, but only when there is a clear and imminent danger. To that point, the case against Iraq hasn't been fully made.

Surely there is another approach short of full-fledged war. Surely a policy of containing and minimizing the threat can be undertaken.

Iraq does have facilities for testing missiles it has no reason to be testing. It clearly has chemical and biological production facilities. Precision air strikes can remove many of those threats, just as air strikes have been used to protect UN-backed air missions enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq. If presidential palaces harbor more weapons, then strike those places as well.

A clear message can be sent to Saddam Hussein that if he or his surrogates so much as breathe an intent to unleash his dangerous weapons on other nations, he won't just be attacked; he will be destroyed.

A full-fledged pre-emptive invasion will only feed the cause of international terrorists. It could be enormously destabilizing to the entire Middle East. It would take a huge human and economic toll.

Those are the reasons pre-emptive, full-scale military actions to remove even despised regimes have never been part of American policy. They shouldn't become so now.



My God, could this get any more bizarre? We can't take the Hussein regime out in what would probably be a short precision ground campaign, but it's okay to pound biological weapons sites with bombers--sites that will undoubtedly be located in civilian areas. For how long? Throughout Saddam's regime? And that of his even more crazed son? This is their solution?

And how does one decide if Saddam is "breathing an intent" to use a weapon? How would that behavior differ significantly from his everyday behavior?

A large number of liberals and leftists changed their minds after Powell's speech. What is left are those to whom facts and reality are optional when an agenda is at stake. This political agenda has completely unhinged some members of the Left, and their credibility is falling in ruins.