Why are the freepers so concerned about the little French poodle when there's a giant bear in the room?
"Russia does not support any resolution which could directly or indirectly open the way to an armed resolution of the Iraq problem," Mr. Ivanov told a news conference. -- from a NY Times article which focuses on Iraq's offer to destroy, "in principle," the supposedly forbidden missiles. The response from Big Brother was predictable: "The rockets are just the tip of the iceberg," President Bush reiterated today in an appearance with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. "The only question at hand is total, complete disarmament, which he is refusing to do," the president said, referring to Mr. Hussein. Notice how W doesn't even mention weapons of mass destruction anymore? Of course, the missiles would not actually fall under that classification unless they had chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, which they do not. But it sounds now as though Bush is demanding that every tank, helicopter, jeep and rifle in Iraq be destroyed. Probably so we can take over the oil fields by just driving onto them, and save our cruise missiles for Iran, North Korea, or Syria.

I think that many countries are now realizing how dangerous it is to oppose the will of Bush, and how it will be even more dangerous not to. The Bushies are a cancer on the earth. If we don't accomplish a little surgery now (impeachment), other nations and/or terrorists will start applying chemotherapy or radiation treatments to try to get rid of it. (Should I run another online poll as to whether that was the best or worst analogy you've ever seen?)