I just wanted to add this. I never planned to start discussing foreign policy in this forum, but now that I've opened the door in the last post, I might as well clarify something.

A foreign policy doctrine based on surgical strikes to prevent massacres, genocide and other human rights abuses would be logical, ethical and a proper use of our armed forces. I am an anti-violence advocate, a bleeding-heart liberal, but I also believe that we have an obligation to the people of the world, as its last remaining superpower, to use our might only when absolutely necessary to end suffering. We were told that Saddam was a ruthless dictator and that is one of the revolving excuses for our invasion.

Let me tell you, there are plenty of other ruthless dictators all over the world. Human rights abuses abound in places like Darfur and Thailand and throughout Latin America. There are even human rights abuses right here in North America. These are deeply troubling situations - as they should be. Why are these abuses not cause for a declaration of war, or at least a "police action?"

I reject the notion that the only reason that we went to war with Iraq was because W had a score to settle over Daddy's unfinished business or that we're just in it for the oil. While both of these things are probably true, foreign policy, especially when it comes to the use of military force, is far more complex and nuanced than that.

Notice that up to this point I haven't used the big "T" word. Of course the threat of terrorism is real and has changed the calculus considerably. Unfortunately, that very real threat has been manipulated into incorrectly justifying an illegal, immoral war. This cynical manipulation of fact and emotion only add to the complexity of the situation.

Oh what a tangled web we weave indeed.