Colonel K wrote:

Senor Barborito wrote:

This describes my thoughts on the matter perfectly:

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was among the speakers who addressed the crowd, huddled against freezing temperatures.

"Let's choose minds over missiles and negotiation over confrontation," he said. "We are here because we choose coexistence over coannihilation, because we choose brains not bombs, and we use brains -- not brute force -- to stop conflict, to stop terrorism and not to spread it.

"It does not stand to reason," he said to cheers, "to have an unfinished confrontation with al Qaeda, ignore the Middle East, and fast-forward to Iraq. We are not finding out about security, we are finding out about hegemony and oil and defense contracts. We deserve better."

--SB

I haven't yet read the irrefutable argument Pollack's The Threatening Storm supposedly presents, but this book seemed to justify my cowardly (liberal?) inclinations against war of any kind. Sure, an 80 page pamphlet isn't going to cure my ignorance on the topic of war - I still laugh at South Park's 'Iraq/Iran; what's the difference?' gag - but I haven't seen any strong opposition to Scott Ritter's case against an impending assault on Iraq. Is Ritter a trustworthy source, or does that become irrelevant if Hussein poses even a minimal threat?