Roll Call - Who's for war, who's against it, and why. Compiled by Julia Turner

Nice short summaries of many people's positions.

My position: Saddam is a bad guy but this is not how you remove him. By the UN Charter and the US Constitution, only the Security Council can decide what happens next in Iraq. The more you examine the "facts" that Bush and Powell have marshalled for war the weaker they seem and it is apparent they have stepped up their presentation from disputed controversial "facts" to outright lies. There is no nuclear weapons program. There is no support by Iraq of al-Queda terrorists threatening the US. Iraq poses no threat to the US or its neighbors. There is no evidence that Iraq posseses an active chemical and biological weapons program. At least 95% and perhaps all of his old weapons of mass destruction that Iraq had built under US sponsership have been destroyed. I have heard no good reasons why we should go to war now.


Only Phase 2?

PBS Frontline had a good introduction to the history of Bush's foreign policy and major players in the anti-Iraqi movement last night. I disagreed with their slant on a few parts and thought that many things were left out that should have been in it so it should probably be called "balanced."

An important final thought to carry away from the report is that Iraq is only Phase 2. The Bush doctrine calls for more phases of US intervention in the world to reshape it toward American interests.

Interesting from the letters to Frontline which follows I pulled this quote: "Prior to his nomination as vice-presidnet, Cheney had even been arguing publically that the United Nations should stop imposing sanctions against Iraq. Go figure!"

Manifest Destiny?

The final letter on Frontline has me thinking of the American belief in "manifest destiny" and how this may be behind some of Bush's foreign policy.