My problem with this forthcoming evidence is that there was no reason to hide it before. It's not as if we're trying to keep our forthcoming attacks secret, so why would we need to hide the evidence that supports it?

Basically, any information we release gives insight into our methods of data collection. Remember a few years ago with the "Oh yeah, Osama, we've been listening to your satellite telephone conversations." That worked out real well when we told him we were listening in. By revealing this information, we are revealing a lot of how Echelon works and could possibly even compromise human sources in Iraq or other countries.

The only reason I can come up with is that it took this long to fabricate it.

There have been instances in the past where the U.S. government has lied to its people (think John Poindexter), but most of us hope that is behind us. Anyway, I don't think they could get away with lying about this if they wanted to. Other countries have their own intelligence and sophisticated tools to check the data. If it is invalid, somebody will pitch a fit to everybody and the U.S. government would lose all credibility here and abroad.

It is pretty obvious to anybody who has looked at international politics that Iraq has Weapons of Mass Destruction. Everybody knows this, even the governments of France, Germany, China, etc. This was apparent even before the weapons inspections and Hans Blix's reports. Still, this may not change your mind, since there are compelling reasons not to go to war. For instance, the first time we will be able to prove Saddam has Nuclear, Chemical, or Biological weapons is when he uses them. There will be civilian casualties, especially since Hussein is mounting SAM sites on top of appartment buildings. We may also anger other Arab countries even more than they already hate us. Finally, we will further lose international support for ourselves and for the U.N. as the U.S. is increasingly seen as a meddling belligerent. If you subscribe to these views, then I don't think merely proving that Iraq is lying is going to be enough for you.

There are also compelling reasons to go to war. After all, Iraq is a rogue government with dangerous weapons, intent on acquiring more. They have at least two conflicts that they used chemical weapons in the past. Last time we fought them, after an unprovoked invasion of Kuwait, they bombed Israel, a noncombatant. They have ruthlessly oppressed many in their own country, including the Kurds in the north and the Shia (?) Muslims in the south. Saddam has let his own people starve while building himself ever grander palaces and letting his son kidnap, rape, torture, and then murder any women he fancied. If we let Iraq get away with this, we undermine all the non-proliferation agreements and accords and open the door for every two bit despot out there to get his own super-powerful weapons.

With this kind of conflict, we have a 95% chance of complete and immediate total victory. 19 times in a row, we can go to war with Iraq or similar and just destroy their armed forces. It is that 20th time that we need to worry about. The ancient Spartans knew this. As the Greek military Superpower, they tended to avoid using their military since there was always that slight chance of losing. If they ever lost, all the rest of the Greeks would have smelled blood, and they would have found themselves in a very uncomfortable position.

I'll support the war, so long as the government proves to me that it is worth that risk. I'm surprised Bush really hasn't made their case yet, instead letting others, both in the States and elsewhere, argue both sides for them. Maybe he will rectify that starting tonight. As far as Iraq possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, anyone who believes otherwise is deluding themselves and shouldn't be surprised if it is proven. As far as whether we should go to war, that could be argued either way.

-Biscuits