First we hear the Administration arguing that we need to go into Iraq because Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction.

But, after an impassioned talk about the immediate danger of the mass murder of Americans by Saddam, we then get a lecture about what we owe Iraq. After invading Iraq to remove the clear and present danger Saddam Hussein poses, our troops have to stay there until we give Iraq a stable democracy.

Nobody asks what one has to do with the other. Why do we owe Iraq a democracy in return for their threatening to murder us? As always, you will only see that question asked here.

"The road to peace in the Middle East peace lies through Baghdad." When I heard that said, my ears pricked up. "Middle East peace," when the media or respectable conservatives use the term, always means peace for Israel.

I do not want American troops dying for Israel. I do not want American troops staying in Iraq to make the world safe for Israel.

I brought up the danger of mass terrorism long before anybody else was concerned about it. See November 21, 1998 - SUPERTERRORISM, repeated September 11, 2001. But I am also very, very watchful about anybody using terrorism as an excuse to get Israeli lobby support.

If the objective is to destroy the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction, that is one argument for invasion that has a clear objective. But the second they start talking about "our responsibility in Iraq," I say forget it. The only reason Bush says we have for a military interest in Iraq is because they are a threat to our lives.

Everybody but me seems to agree that, because they threatened our lives, we owe the Iraqis a stable government and a democracy.

It should be a warning to you that this is the only place you will find any objection to that nonsense.

We have all heard the old adage that, for a successful restaurant, there are three important factors: 1) Location, 2) Location and 3) Location.

In that order.

World Opinion is shouting loudly about US policy relative to Iraq. Everybody is debating what meaning European opinion has.

So let me explain the three factors which decide the European view of morality: 1) who wins the war, 2) who wins the war, and 3) who wins the war.

In that order.

Europe now jails anti-semites. If Hitler had won the war, those same Europeans would not only be chasing down Jews for the Nazis, they would be preaching about how moral it is to chase down Jews for the Nazis.

Respectable conservatives collaborate with liberals to destroy anyone liberals say is a political heretic. Like Europeans, respectable conservatives call this collaboration "morality." Respectable conservative collaboration is how they get liberal media to call them "respectable."

Like all collaborators, Europeans and respectable conservatives always end up on the winner's side. No one was ever accused of a War Crime who was not on the losing side. No one questions the morality of this but me.

No one even bothers to STATE this rule but me.

So much for all the BS. If Bush wins the war he will be approved by all the opinions that he cares about.