Iraq protesters believe an attack would be immoral. Specifically, they believe that America particularly if it acted without a U.N. mandate, though possibly even if it acted with one would, by killing many people in an act of unprovoked aggression, be guilty of at best an abuse of power, and at worst a war crime.

The objection here goes beyond the technicalities of Security Council resolutions, and beyond international law, whatever that is. The question is fundamental: If America uses naked aggression as an implement of foreign policy, is it not a rogue nation?

Eight years ago the Clinton administration brought home a piece of paper from North Korea promising

Before we commit to our nation's first ever preemptive strike and find ourselves battling two wars with no definitive end, we need to ask ourselves if there are better answers towards a solution in Iraq. Before Congress extends its constitutionally mandated authority to declare war and we commit to military action, the United States must exhaust all diplomatic options for a peaceful solution and we must develop a strategy for stabilizing the region. The president's proposed resolution to Congress is a misguided demonstration of six-gun politics at its worst. It is a reckless disregard of the obvious, one that lacks even the barest essentials for good public policy. It lacks deliberation, short- and long-term planning, efforts for coalition building, and consideration of global politics.

The so-called Agreed Framework, brokered with the help of Jimmy Carter, the former president and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, was hailed by The New York Times as "a resounding triumph

Some topics in this essay:
Iraq Congress, North Korea, Saddam Hussein, United Nations', Persian Gulf, Jong Il, Security Council, Korea Iraq, York Times, President Gore, north korea, clinton administration,