Iraq for Supper

There's something more than a little galling about the way the Bush Administration ponders which country to attack next, with all the insouciance of a wealthy couple deciding which fancy restaurant to go to on Saturday night.

"What do you feel like, George? Do you want Somalia, Yemen, the Sudan, the Philippines, or maybe Iraq?"
"Well, Rummy, I'm kind of in the mood for Iraq."

By many accounts, the Administration appears set to go after Saddam Hussein sometime this year in an all-out effort to topple his regime.

The American people are already primed, in Pavlovian fashion, to respond favorably to such an action at the mere mention of Saddam's name.

No matter that it would be an illegal war.

In the days after September 11, Congress authorized Bush to use force against any individual, group, or nation that was connected to the terrorist attacks. But the Administration has had the damnedest time trying to pin anything related to September 11 on Saddam Hussein. It desperately wanted to find an Iraqi link to the anthrax mailings, but that failed. So now it's reverting to the old he-won't-let-us-inspect line.

Yet that wouldn't cut it under Congress's use-of-force resolution.

Nor would that cut it under international law.

The only justification for waging war against another country is if you've been attacked by that country or you're about to be attacked by that country. And neither claim can credibly be made about Iraq.

But such niceties are lost on Bush. He's making reservations for Baghdad.

Matthew Rothschild is Editor of The Progressive.