The Prez keeps telling us he has not decided to attack Iraq. Then all of his cronies fan out to tell anyone who might be listening why we should attack NOW NOW NOW!

I've got a simple rhetorical question: Is it worse to lie about war or a blow job?

Lately, anyone who opposes immediate involvement in Iraq is labeled an "appeaser." The concept of allowing U.N. weapons inspectors to try and do their job before military action is called a "Munich-style" policy.

The Prez's dad compared Saddam Hussein to Adolf Hitler, and now his son is ramming that concept home with a vengeance. Thing is, Saddam is no Hitler. Germany was (and, after reunification, is once again) the largest nation in Europe, a country filled with people, industry and natural resources. Even while chafing under settlement terms from World War I (which Hitler repudiated soon after taking office), there could be no mistake: Germany was a player. Much (though not all) of the land ceded at Munich had been part of Germany before 1918. Up until the end of World War II, borders in Europe were decidedly fluid. Folks in cuspal regions (such as Alsace in what is now France) learned to speak more than one language and swore allegiance to whoever held sway at any given time. My point here is that while Chamberlain (who--like Winston Churchill--was a Tory, despite what a couple of historically-challenged pundits have been braying of late) probably made a mistake at Munich, what he did was in keeping with standard elitist European politics of an earlier era (earlier than 1936, I mean).

Iraq is a country with very little industry, an impoverished people and one natural resource. Saddam commands a weak army and minor chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Is he a bad guy? Sure. Most dictators are. Is he an imminent threat to the United States? No. Is he an imminent threat to the region? No. As long as he's allowed to play his games, he's not gonna go after anyone. Though, as the CIA noted in a briefing this week, once we attack all bets are off.

If you wanna compare Saddam to a dictator, there are only a couple that come to mind. Col. Moammar Ghadafy (spell his name however you like) and my good friend Fidel Castro.

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for the bearded one. First, he replaced a truly repressive dictatorship. Those in the Cuban community of south Florida who want to return to the "good old days" are dangerous goons. Now, it's possible there are those who want to see Fidel's fall without a restoration of the Batista apparatus, but I don't hear much from them. What I hear and see are the guys with baseball bats who (quite literally) beat down anyone who speaks out in favor of even the shortest dialogue with Castro.

Plus, I see ol' Fidel as just another little guy screwed over by misguided American politics. If we hadn't been so paranoid about a non-existent internal communist threat (anyone who seriously believes that a communist coup could have taken place in this country in the 1950s or any other time should be given a one-way ticket to Bellevue's padded ward), it's likely Eisenhower and Kennedy could have fashioned an accommodation with Fidel.

Instead, we got the Bay of Pigs.

I do give the Prez credit. He's not talking about handing out small arms to the various anti-Saddam Iraqis and dropping them off at the border. He's going full bore. I think that's a good idea--if you're gonna throw a war.

But we don't need to do that. There's all this nonsense about what will happen if we leave Saddam in power. Hell, we know what will happen. The same thing that has happened with Col. Ghadafy in Libya. The same thing that has happened with Fidel and Cuba.

Ghadafy may (or may not) have fomented the Pan Am bombing. I think he probably did, but even so, it's easy to understand (though not condone) his lashing out. After all, we'd just bombed out his capital. Going on raw numbers, we're still way ahead in the body count (of civilians; most of the folks killed that morning in Tripoli had nothing to do with the government).

As for Fidel, he remains the charmingly obdurate character Jesse Helms has loved to hate for decades. Fidel's one-time compatriot Che Guevara traveled the hemisphere in search of a better revolution. Fidel stayed home and generally improved living conditions for the Cuban people. At least, he did until the Soviet Union quit cashing his checks.

See, Fidel figured out how to play the game. Just like Saddam. And while a decade of increasing poverty in Cuba (somewhat exacerbated by the U.S. embargo, though probably not as badly as some might think) has left him the doddering elderly statesman of the totalitarian set, he's still got the admiration of many Cubans. Sure, the Cuban people would certainly be freer (though probably not richer) with an elected government. I just don't think it's worth killing a lot of those people before said freedom can be achieved. I mean, the guy's gonna die sooner than later anyway.

The same goes for Iraq. Does anyone really believe that we can create a modern secular Islamic state? Our experience in Afghanistan is hardly encouraging in this regard. I mean, we're really trying there and I don't see any evidence that Hamid Karzai has much of a chance at all. What seems more likely to happen is that we burn Baghdad to the ground, kill Saddam, leave a few "democracy advisors" and then traipse off to the next front in our neverending war on terrorism.

Which would illustrate the true Bush Doctrine: If we're not at war, then we're just not trying hard enough.

Jon Worley thinks you need a really, really good reason to kill anyone. Even Saddam Hussein.