I listened to Secretary of State Colin Powell and watched his presentation for a case for war against Iraq. OK, he didn’t actually say this is a "case for war," but why beat around the bush (oops). With U.S. military power building by the thousands each day, a case for war is what Secretary Powell was making.

By now you have all heard, seen, and read Secretary Powell’s presentation. We have also all heard the President’s strong words to the UN. And we are hearing daily the "conservative" opinion-makers in defense of the Bush doctrine of Pre-Emptive war.

Unfortunately this war is neither in the "conservative" interest, nor is it in America’s interest.

Let’s recap:

From a conservative perspective there is nothing wrong with fighting a war. In fact on September 11^th a war was started against the U.S. and our nation responded in kind. We fought back, slapped some people around really good, missed some important lessons to be learned, got bored, and moved on to other actions. OK, I editorialized a little here, but the point is that going after Al Qaeda was a righteous American war…we just fought with half measures (the true Vietnam syndrome) and did not finish the mission.

Pre-emptive war is not a foundational principle of the American way. Pre-emptive war is in itself either an aggressive strategy made from a position of weakness ("if we are to win we must strike first", e.g. Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor) or it is the act of an aggressor nation (e.g. anything Germany did during World War II). Neither is a position the U.S. has taken in over 200 years of history.

Secretary Powell’s presentation did not provide enough evidence to overcome the burden of proof needed to send the American military into action without violating our long history opposed to the principles of an aggressor nation. In essence the Powell presentation just restated, with pictures and sound what everyone already knew about Saddam and Iraq.

If the Secretary wanted to deliver an effective presentation on Iraq, he might have actually told the world who is selling banned material to Saddam. Is it the French? Germans? Russians? Chinese? Hmmm…now that is information to share with the American people!

And the Secretary could have overcome the burden of proof needed to make a case for a righteous war if he had offered some proof like:

• 15 of 19 attackers on September 11^th were Iraqi
• Money from Iraqi oil production and collected by Iraqi’s all over the world is going to fund terrorism.
• Iraq maintains a radical Islamic sect that exports hate, prejudice, and fanatics to fuel militant Islamic attacks on this nation, our embassies, and citizens.

Unfortunately the overwhelming evidence for a righteous war points to the Saudis, but we are much too compromised at the highest levels of the U.S. government to do what needs to be done with the Saudis.

Speaking of "compromised at the highest levels of the U.S. government" rumors abound of a real Iraqi link to the Oklahoma City bombing and to the first WTC attack. On top of that, evidence has been repeatedly offered of a missile attack on TWA flight 800. Such an attack would be a prime candidate for a state sponsored terror mission. Could it have been the Iraqis?

Any of this evidence presented to the American people would make a clear case for a righteous war against Iraq and Saddam. That it is not offered indicates either that the rumors are not true, OR that the U.S. government has repeatedly lied to the American people. Opinion-makers throwing these rumors around as evidence for a Pre-emptive war are complicit in the innuendo-as-fact case for making the U.S. an aggressor nation.

No, Secretary Powell did not offer any evidence to overcome the burden of proof needed to make the upcoming U.S. war on Iraq a righteous war. The United States for the first time in its history will be viewed as an aggressor nation regardless of the evil that lives in Iraq. Events are being set in motion that will not end well for this Administration, and maybe even for the American people. As we would expect from our own reactions, aggressors are met with whatever resistance can be summoned. Just ask North Korea about their plans.

We are on the wrong course. Al Qaeda activity pushes our national threat level to it second highest level and we are massing troops not on our borders, but on the border with Iraq. Why are we having this war?