Bush administration seemed unduly impatient with the delay caused by the need for additional UN Security Council (UNSC) debate.
With or without UN authorization and support, the United States remains adamant that Saddam Hussein and his regime will be removed from power.
This is why free people in the United States and around the world must work even harder to stop President Bush from invading Iraq.
That path, of course, would be a long one, and full of surprises. But unlike the path that the Cheney team would have us think inevitable, it would open into a future worth having.
As long as Iraq cooperates with the inspectors and complies with their requirements, it seems wrong-headed to launch a war whose ostensible objective is the same as the inspectors': to disarm Iraq.
There is skepticism around Bush's plan to prevent HIV infections, as stated in his latest State of the Union address.
Afghanistan and Iraq, wracked by decades of conflict and deprivation, require intensive, long-term, and durable commitments of international support.
Before the American public starts applauding the administration's newfound commitment to assembling an international coalition to attack Iraq, it should put the partners' participation in perspective.
It is probable that the French, Germans, and Russians will resist U.S. war plans in the Security Council until, at the last possible minute, some sort of compromise is reached allowing a second resolution.
If Secretary of State Colin Powell, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the U.S. public, and other moderates ever had any doubts about the extent to which the most hard-line hawks have captured U.S. foreign policy, President George W. Bush's Wednesday nigh