So now we're hearing from CIA Director George Tenet that Saddam Hussein may be more likely to launch terror attacks against the U.S. if he thinks an attack against him cannot be detered by international politics, or by gaming the new batch of inspectors.
Hmmmm. What are we supposed to do with this information? That it would be better to not go after Saddam? That it would be better to not take a whack at the hornet's next?
Is the CIA director entering a political area? Or giving his best estimation of the intelligence information? After all, he made his remarks publicly so he wanted the American public to hear his opinion.
Again... what are we to conclude?
If we don't attack Saddam, he will attack us someday. And when he attacks, he'll try to hide his fingerprints. But if we attack Saddam now, he will strike back immediately and won't bother trying to hide who is responsible.
Ultimately, does this information make us hestitate to go after Saddam? Or does it just speed up the process?
I understand the threat of weapons of mass destruction is there, but was it ever really not there? If you believe Saddam is dangerous, do you believe he was never dangerous to us?
I think all this says is that we need to hurry. We have information indicating Saddam would do us harm, and there is much more harm in waiting and hoping than in deciding and acting.
Saddam tightens his own noose. That's the Saddam way.
That's My Word.
What do you think? We'd like to hear from you, so send us your comments at email@example.com. Some of your emails will be featured on the air or on our site.
• Looking for some previous My Word columns? Click here!