[Cerek the Barbaric]

I'll be the first to admit that I don't completely understand all the "subtle nuances" referred to in the article, but I don't see that Bush is being given unilateral power and allowed to bypass the Congress.

The article states that Bush can send in occupation forces IF Saddam is "toppled" from power. THAT cannot be accomplished by force from the U.S. without the approval of Congress. Whether he took action directly against Saddam, or just sent in "occupation forces", it would HAVE to be considered "an Act of War"...and my understanding is that he could do neither of these WITHOUT the express approval of Congress.

Seriously though, Charaen, if I'm "overlooking" something (or simply mis-reading the article) let me know.

While I don't particularly agree with the "threat" that Saddam supposedly represents, I have to admit there a several advantages for Bush to pursue this action. You mentioned a "political agenda", but I think that's only one of the underlying factors.

Look at it from his perspective....

"Should I invade Iraq? If so, why?"
1. Bin Laden escaped my clutches. I still haven't delivered a "villain" to answer for 9/11? And we've hated Saddam for 11 years. He's the perfect substitute for the missing Bin Laden.

2. Taking control of Iraq will give us access to their oil fields. I can use that to lower fuel prices at home (improving the economy and general morale) AND give my BIG OIL buddies access to the TONS and TONS of crude oil that they can stockpile and control.

3. If we invade Iraq, it will increase "anti-American" sentiment among the Arab nations. So what? The Arab nations already hate us. "The Great Satan" is NOT a term of endearment.

4. However, if I DO invade (and take over) Iraq, it just might make the other Arab nations think twice about that "anti-American" stance. It's easy to shout insults at somebody when they don't retaliate. Let's see how quick they are to back up thier taunts and threats once they realize we ain't gonna take it anymore.

5. If I DO successfully "depose" Saddam and occupy Iraq, I can claim a DOUBLE victory during the next election, since I will have "defeated" America's two greatest "modern-day" enemies. That should lead to an easy re-election.

Don't get me wrong...I actually like George Bush, Jr. and I think he has done a far better job that Al Gore would have under the circumstances. (Pure conjecture on my part, I know). But everything ANY politician does contains "political undertones", because almost ALL of them WANT to get re-elected or move up the political ladder in one form or another.

So I am just providing an "honost" evaluation of the advantages for George Bush IF he does invade and occupy Iraq - and these are based on MY perspective alone.