I am mystified when people complain that the recent Iraq war was unbiblical. Even without considering the future harm Saddam would have done had we not acted (statisticians have estimated based on past death counts that since Saddam's ousting we've saved about 80+ Iraqis per day from his regime), an entire nation is now freed from a murderously cruel dictator, political prisoners and children kept in captivity are now free, running water and electricity have been restored to Iraqi cities and all this with minimum casualties and without enacting a draft.

I am curious to ask these people if they think Bill Clinton's bombings of Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Sudan during his own presidency were "biblical", even considering Clinton's motives behind some of the bombings. It is common knowledge that he probably initiated bombings of Sudan to distract people from Monica. Indeed, Clinton bombed a country to distract the American people from a court hearing in which he testified that he lied under oath about an adulterous affair. He's the only sitting president ever to be held in contempt of court, which I believe is a felony. It is a wonder people hold this chronic liar and philanderer in such high esteem.

Liberals didn't protest Clinton's military aggressiveness because he was a Democrat, not because it may have been militarily "just". Some of the bombings probably were just. But that's not the point. Clinton's constituents, including Democrat senator John Kerry, were pro-war during Clinton's eight years in office; Kerry insisted in 1997 that military action be taken against Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction. Bush happens to finish a job that Clinton started, and he gets painted as a war-monger by the Democrats who approved of it in the first place.

What is Bush supposed to do? He was sworn in to uphold the Constitution and protect the lives and freedom of Americans. Should we cower in a corner, whimper and tell terrorists, "oh, please don't hurt us!"? Protecting our livelihood sometimes means weighing the potential risks of doing nothing. The same people who complained that we didn't "connect the dots" prior to 9-11, are now complaining that we HAVE connected the dots in Iraq. I don't even want to think about what Saddam or other terrorists could have done had the United States stood back and done nothing.