Riddle me this: why was it okay for President Clinton to go into the Balkans without approval of the U.N. Security Council, but it's not okay for President Bush to go into Iraq--where there is a WMD threat--without the approval of the U.N. Security Council?

A study by Washington University (of St. Louis, MO), published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, of 311 Australian twin pairs, concludes that teenage pot users are five times more likely to use or abuse cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, sedatives, or alcohol. The study was undertaken to prove the opposite. Sorry, NORML. Keep trying to spin the positive aspects of marijuana. I'm sure Woody Harrelson needs something to do with all of his copious spare time.

You have to admire and respect a conservative startup at one of the bastions of leftist thinking. They give away the 4,000 copies they print to Berkeley students, and have no advertising, relying on donations.

Some times, real life is just too much fun to have to make up fiction. (Yes, I know I'm paraphrasing; sue me. Thanks, Jim.)

Riddle me this: what good is it to have U-2 flights over Iraq, in the hope of locating production and storage facilities for weapons of mass destruction, if we're going to tell the Iraqis when the plane flies and where it goes?!?!? (thanks, Brian)

What is it with the "news" media and the hippie-throwback peaceniks out there? Oh, Saddam and the Iraqi government are making all of these concessions; we certainly can't go to war now. We must give the inspectors more time. We must extend the time for inspections to continue. Why? I have yet to hear one good reason why. Let's see: Hans Blix, in his report Friday, called for more inspections. Gee, that couldn't possibly be because he is a weapons inspector, could it? There's great job security in being a U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq; they've been working there off and on for more than 10 years. You find myriad violations of 1441 and earlier resolutions, passed by the very body you work for, yet your answer is not to punish the offending government, but rather to push for inspections to continue. How idiotic and foolish is this? The U.N. itself, vis-a-vis Secretary-General Kofi Annan, is calling for yet another resolution to be passed before military force can be used against the Hussein regime. Why? Resolution 1441 already accounts for the need to use military force in the event of a material breech. I would say the illegal importation of 350 SA-2 rockets is a material breech. Saddam's regime has declared only 8,500 liters of anthrax, while the U.N. inspection teams believe there are 25,000 liters. So we're missing something on the order of 16,500 liters, with no proof of their destruction. Sounds like material breech. With each passing day, the United Nations shows how irrelevant is has become in international relations. Pop quiz: name one conflict in the world the United Nations has successfully resolved without the use of some kind of military force since its inception. Good luck. I'm still waiting for a President with the guts to not only pull the United States out of the now irrelevant United Nations, but NATO as well, and to stop the subsidization of an increasingly hostile-to-America U.N., giving them the boot from our soil. Let them go set up in France, Belgium, or Germany. The "news" media and peaceniks are all running around congratulating Saddam on his joke of a presidential decree, as if such a promise from a known liar is worth the paper it's printed on. Speaking of all of the peace-love-and-happiness anti-war protestors, please allow me to congratulate you. You have managed to ingratiate yourselves with a mass murderer, with a man known for invading his neighbors and gassing his own citizens. I hope this makes you happy. Oh, and that "smoking gun" you all keep whining about?

"[President Bush's] critics demand a smoking gun [before attacking Iraq], but the problem with waiting till one is found is that a smoking gun has just been fired. It will be too late." --Paul Greenberg

Please, get a clue. This is not a war about oil. If America had oil-based imperalist aspirations in the Middle East, then we would have driven all the way to Baghdad in 1991, and stayed in Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia when we had the chance. And if it weren't for the environmental extremists, many of whom are the same people "marching for peace," the United States would be happily drilling all of the oil it needs itself. Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction; he has used them in the past, both in the war with Iran and against his own citizens. No evidence has been provided by Hussein that he has ceased production of said weapons, nor has any evidence been provided that he has complied with international resolutions calling for those weapons' destruction. Let us be perfectly clear: the burden of proof regarding destruction of any WMDs rests with Saddam Hussein, not the United Nations inspections teams or any other government. He has failed to provide this proof. It has been proven that there is a link between the Hussein regime and al-Qaeda, the latter of which has sworn to do all it can to attack and harm the United States and its allies. If you think that Hussein is not willing to supply WMDs to al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations willing to attack mutually perceived enemies, you are foolish and naive.