Steven DenBeste has been saying (for a long time in Blogyears) that requiring the US to wait to be attacked in order to "permit" a military response is dumb. I agree and I won't bore you with the reasoning. Just read DenBeste.

But is anybody listening out there?

From the Times:

Brent Scowcroft [former US National Security Adviser to Bush the Elder - CG] who remains close to the Bush family, urged the President to concentrate on trying to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians while separately pursuing terrorist threats to the United States. But he said that by going to war with Iraq without linking President Saddam Hussein and September 11, Washington was risking a conflagration in the Middle East that would also engulf its efforts to defeat global terror groups.

His warning came as a former British Chief of Defence Staff said that Britain risked being dragged into a “very, very messy” and lengthy war if it supported a US military assault on Iraq. Field Marshal Lord Bramall called on Tony Blair to exercise caution, saying that an invasion to topple Saddam may not be morally or legally justified.

What exactly is it that we now have in the middle east? An acceptable level barbarity? Does Scowcroft think it could get worse? How is it that taking out a major source of revenue and logistical support for terrorists in general and Palestinian terrorists in particular will hurt the war on terror or make things worse for or in Israel? The effect on Iran and Saudi occupied Arabia of ousting Saddam will be bad how, and how does that compare to the effect on those regimes of NOT taking Saddam out?

And another thing: Why is it that we have to either wait for one of our cities to be nuked or prove (to whose satisfaction?) that Saddam already attacked us on 9/11 before going after him? Personally, I live too near to NYC to find the risk of waiting for the morally correct moment to strike (back) acceptable.