In the Middle East as in Europe, there is a strong tradition of bandit heroes, challenging authority and eluding capture. The tradition is indeed longer and stronger than in Europe, since it has continued from the Middle Ages into modern times.

Zac Monro played a mean guitar as he jumped on an outdoor stage in northern Finland, but he didn't even strike a chord.

As the red sun set behind the dark fir trees, he changed tactics and rolled on his back while thrashing madly with his hands--enough to give him the Air Guitar World Champion title for a second straight year.

Well, duh. It was supposed to be. If it hadn't been it would have been a colossal waste of money.

What is it, then, about the villain in Baghdad that should provoke the United States to rid the world of him? One spectacular thing: He is the only leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them. He used them against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians. This is what makes Saddam Hussein so distinguished in the field of evil. Morally and strategically, he lives in a post-deterrence world. We do not need to speculate about whether he would do the dirtiest deed. He has already done the dirtiest deed. That is the case, and "the case."

The American-Zionist scheme against the Saudi economy ... became more clear with this baseless lawsuit.

While the once great nations of Europe abdicate their responsibilities, danger grows. The spread of devastating weapons accelerates.

And support by terrorism's state sponsors continues beneath the scenes.

Despite the expanding capabilities of terror regimes and the growth of evil organizations, Europe peddles excuses for inaction.

They demand we accept consensus as a first principle. They wish to direct the enterprise, but retreat seems to be their only war plan.

Make no mistake about it, we're at war and we don`t have time to dawdle.

Europe stands paralyzed because European leaders seem unable to grasp a very fundamental principle: There's no moral equivalence between those defending freedom and the terrorists and tyrants who seek to deny it--first to their own people, later to others.

This fight is no longer about reacting to the attacks on New York and Washington. It's about stopping killers from robbing more widows and orphans of their loved ones. It's about preventing attacks on Chicago, Miami, Seattle, and yes, Houston.

Who doubts that terrorists seek tools to do grave harm to the United States? And, once a madman like Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons, there's no telling when an American city will be targeted at his direction or with his support.

And so we must move ahead. Despite weeks of feverish hand wringing over the refusal by many to acknowledge the overwhelming supposed missing body of evidence against Iraq's dictator, the case is self-evident.

Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous man in the world today. We say that because he's used chemical weapons against his own people. He's invaded his neighbors.

And he concentrates the energy of his regime on developing and manufacturing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

Unrepentant for past crimes and ungoverned by reason or morality, he relentlessly seeks tools to commit infinitely worse offenses against humanity.

In 1993, he tried to assassinate former President Bush and the Emir of Kuwait.

Removing Saddam from power and liberating the Iraqi people would do more to advance the war against terror than any step we've taken yet.

Removing Saddam would send a clear and unambiguous signal to every other state sponsor of terror: "Shape up, because the price of subsidizing terror is now more than you can afford."

Returning their government to the people of Iraq would signal democratic reformers around the region that the United States is deeply committed to expanding freedom.

It would demonstrate that we stand ready to help any willing country discover the blessings of self-government.

And, by assisting reformers in Iraq to govern themselves, we would show that the United States has no intention of ruling in place of fallen dictators.

But most importantly, ending Saddam's dictatorship would deprive terrorist groups of refuge, training, support, and access to Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

Hold on, hold on. Let me get this straight. CNN reports the story like this:


German tactical police stormed the Iraqi Embassy Tuesday, ending a five-hour siege and rescuing hostages taken by an obscure group opposed to the regime of President Saddam Hussein.

The Embassy, of course, is Iraqi soil. Am I to understand that Germany invaded Iraqi territory all by itself, without consultation with the UN or its allies? Under what law? Under what international agreement? German tactical police - the very term ought to send shivers up anyone?s back. Who will stand up to these rogue armed unilateralists? Are we now to assume that Germany feels it can shoot its way into any embassy because it says it's rescuing "hostages"? Nowhere in these stories will you find the root causes of Iraqi discontent - no, it's just the usual bang-bang oil-poisoned warmonger solution. As if storming an embassy, subduing the occupiers and freeing the clerical staff accomplishes anything people can point to in 500 years. We must denounce these Gestapo tactics, and ask ourselves what drove these militants, these resistors, these freedom fighters to their desperate acts. Obviously, the problem is Saddam -

Uh, hold on, wait a minute -

Q: Okay, skip the international law part. What makes a preemptive strike okay, acceptable?

Rumsfeld: Well, I would make the case that there are a whole series of things that ought to be looked at, and that there isn't a single one that's determinative, and that what one would have to do is to evaluate those and weigh them.

And the construct I would suggest would be what are the benefits -- what are the advantages and disadvantages of not acting? And of course, the advantage of not acting against the moon would be that no one could say that you acted; they would say, "Isn't that good, you didn't do anything against the moon." The other side of the coin, of not acting against the moon in the event that the moon posed a serious threat, would be that you'd then suffered a serious loss and you're sorry after that's over. And in weighing the things, you have to make a judgment; net, do you think that you're acting most responsibly by avoiding the threat that could be characterized -- X numbers of people dying, innocent people -- and it's that kind of an evaluation one would have to make.

Blaming is especially difficult in terrorist situations because someone is at fault. In this country, we still believe that all people are innocent until solid, reliable evidence from our legal authorities proves otherwise.

The implication is that al Qaeda, or another terrorist group, could create a number of different ways of attacking people, for example, in an enclosed area, such as an airport lobby, or in a theater or a train or a bus. Another is that it could be used against individuals selectively, who are targeted for assassination.

Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more or less than a hereditary monopoly "owner" – the prince or king – being replaced by temporary and interchangeable – monopoly "caretakers" – presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both kings and presidents will produce bads, yet a king, because he "owns" the monopoly and may sell or bequeath it, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on "his" territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, he will exploit only moderately and calculatingly. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted (present-oriented) and uncalculated, i.e., carried out without regard for the value of the capital stock.

In a natural order every scarce resource, including all land, is owned privately, every enterprise is funded by voluntarily paying customers or private donors, and entry into every line of production, including that of property protection, conflict arbitration, and peacemaking, is free.

Finally, we need to revive constitutionalism. One effect of the overemphasis on pure democracy is that little effort is given to creating imaginative constitutions for transitional countries. Constitutionalism, as it was understood by its greatest eighteenth century exponents, such as Montesquieu and Madison, is a complicated system of checks and balances designed to prevent the accumulation of power and the abuse of office. This is done not by simply writing up a list of rights but by constructing a system in which government will not violate those rights. Various groups must be included and empowered because, as Madison explained, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Constitutions were also meant to tame the passions of the public, creating not simply democratic but also deliberative government.

Democracy without constitutional liberalism is not simply inadequate, but dangerous, bringing with it the erosion of liberty, the abuse of power, ethnic divisions, and even war.

Never mind what these goals may be (such as becoming a world power, improving citizens' standard of living or propagating a cultural model). The democratic ideology, like modern science, sees itself as wertfrei, or devoid of any reference to values. There is nothing in the ideology of democracy that prevents the majority from reintroducing torture in interrogating suspects, for instance, or from confiscating the property of Jews or any minority.

One would like to think that it is unambiguously good that more than a third of the poorest citizens see their incomes grow and converge to the levels enjoyed by the richest people in the world. And if our indexes say that inequality rises, then rising inequality must be good, and we should not worry about it!

Not since the days of Theodore Roosevelt have so many Republicans been talking so mean about big business.

First, Republican fundraisers are concerned about a possible drop-off in corporate contributions. Big business donors may be less willing to court criticism by giving large sums to the GOP -- even as labor unions, a key funding source for Democrats, get fired up.

"Business is hunkered down," a prominent GOP lobbyist said. The rising anti-corporate tone "is having a stifling effect, rather than an energizing effect," on the willingness of big business to enter the fray.