After an event like Sept. 11, you can’t expect the country to heal overnight. The economy, as a result of that fatal Tuesday, is in near-shambles, and our domestic rights are slowly disappearing with each move Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft makes. Soldiers and their families have held hands tighter because they’ve been programmed to believe that there could be another attack any minute-and there very well could be. In fact, with President Bush’s recent "good idea" to attack Iraq and save the "civilized" world from Saddam Hussein, those attacks are essentially a guarantee.

In his speech on Monday night, Bush said that Iraq "could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists." But CIA Director George Tenet told Congress in a letter the same day that such a reaction would be unlikely unless provoked by something similar to Bush’s proposed war, as a "last chance to exact vengeance." (source: CNN.com)

Tenet continued to state in the letter that if Hussein felt an attack from the U.S. couldn’t be deterred, then the likelihood of a switch to terrorist acts would increase.

Honestly, I don’t expect much else from Bush than a skewed perception of the world, after his impromptu interview on Election Day 2000, where he said, point-blank, "the world is at peace."

Don’t get me wrong, Hussein is a major problem to the whole world, not just Bush’s SUV-driving buddies. His dictatorial practices have alienated his entire nation, and his stubbornness has impacted his ability to rebuild his nation.

The condition of Iraq makes the entire idea of "war on Iraq" sound like frying eggs with a jet engine. Iraq is in shambles because of the U.S. We bomb that country constantly, and no one we’re "after" suffers, only innocent men, women, and children who have to drink polluted water because we’ve obliterated their sewage system.

Also in his speech, Bush made the statement that al-Qaeda had many operatives hiding in Iraq. This statement is also not surprising, as Bush said during a fundraiser in Houston in regards to the proposed war on Iraq, "this is the guy that tried to kill my dad."

Vengeance. That’s all it is. I don’t expect anything less from the man who’s used the death penalty more than anyone in the nation’s history, thinking people going away solves the problems they cause. Bad people leave behind legacies, too, because some twit somewhere trusts everything Osama bin Laden or Hussein says.

Not once did he offer proof for his statement about the al-Qaeda/Iraq connection, and not once did he acknowledge that opinion polls have shown while many Americans want an active solution for Iraq, they’d rather pursue diplomatic options first. Moreover, Americans are opposed to a unilateral plan of action, meaning the U.S. would attack Iraq without any backing from other countries.

Whether the U.S. initiates strong military action against Iraq hinges on the decisions of the United Nations. In his letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, former U.S. Atty. Gen. Ramsey Clark wrote, "a military attack on Iraq is obviously criminal; completely inconsistent with urgent needs of the Peoples of the United Nations; unjustifiable on any legal or moral ground; irrational in light of the known facts; out of proportion to other existing threats of war and violence; and a dangerous adventure risking continuing conflict throughout the region and far beyond for years to come."

Being the President, you’d think Bush would know that Congress has to declare war; it’s not an executive privilege but a legislative one. America hasn’t declared a war since 1941, but we go to war anyway under the guise of "protecting our national interests" with tools that can blow a city to smithereens. I think it’s safe to say that Iraq having the world’s second largest supply of oil is playing a much larger part in this attack than he’d have us know.

I think Bush does know that he doesn’t have the absolute power to send us to war, but the way he’s insisting upon it as if there is no other viable way to turn the heat down on Iraq shows otherwise to the American people. "New York Times" foreign affairs columnist Thomas Friedman said in an interview with "Rolling Stone" writer Will Dana that "the Bush people are really good at smashing things…if all we want to do is disarm Iraq and leave some rickety regime behind, it’s not going to take long" (issue 907).

At first blush, that sounds pretty good. Having Hussein right where we want him and his relentlessness quelled to the point of being manageable would mean more peace for us. However, it would not mean peace for the private citizens of Iraq, whom Bush speaks rather highly of in his speech. His proposed plan would destroy families and would only incite more terror. That means more families, holding more hands, not for comfort, but for fear.

Is that really what the American people want? Or is that just what Bush wants?