A few thoughts that I've had:

I think you have to consider that this was a state of the union speech. As such, presidents use them to outline their vision of where the country is and what policies they want to initiate in the future. It's not a forum to go into great detail on what our "proof" is. But I do think the president articulated as well as I have heard Saddam's duplicity vis a vis the UN resolutions since the Gulf War. 108 inspectors are NOT going to find these weapons that Saddam has refused to account for. Unless he comes clean he remains in violation of the surrender terms that he signed at the end of the gulf war. So the question becomes, if he is not in compliance, what is the UN going to do about it? Is it a legitimate organization or just talk?

I think we need to wait and hear what Powell will present to the Security Console on Feb 5th. And I do think the US needs to do what it deems neccesary for it's national interests and security. We can't let the likes of France and Germany dictate to us what our national interests are.

Regarding Korea, one crisis at a time! That situation is very different from Iraq and needs to be handled a different way. Lets face it, the risk to S Korea is immense and it will require a different approach from Iraq.

I too, am puzzled as to why when Clinton blasted Iraq with cruise missiles and fixed wing planes a few years back, there were virtually NO protests in the streets. He did it without UN approaval and was condeemed in the UN, yet we saw no marching in the streets. But Bush trys to work with the UN and the protesters take to the streets. Must be a partisan thing...

On a final note, what did you think of Gov. Locke? I thought he looked like a used car salesman. That goofy grin and fake sincerity was embarassing.