The quagmirers and murkers have clearly moved on to their next concern--keeping Iraq safe for Saddam and other living things. The latest is this piece by the normally semi-rational (if a little overexcitable) Chris Matthews.

A couple choice quotes:

To topple Saddam would take a half-million to a million U.S. troops. It would require an occupying force capable of policing a civilian population that would be embittered by a brutal bombing campaign. It would cast us in the role of the aggressor.

Ummmm... do you have some data to support that troop estimate, Chris?

I didn't think so.

And speaking of embittered populations, I hear that the Afghan people are for the most part thrilled with our bombing over there. Do you really believe that Saddam has more domestic support than did the Taliban? The media over here may not know who's been starving the Iraqi women and children to build palaces and weapons, but it's no secret to the Iraqi people.

Bush must certainly know that an all-out invasion would put the United States on one side, Iraq and the rest of the world on the other. I doubt that even British Prime Minister Tony Blair would back an attack on Baghdad.

Well, unlike Chris, I don't know whether Bush knows that or not. I don't think that even I know that. I wonder why Chris thinks that he does. At a minimum, I actually do suspect Mr. Blair can be persuaded to go along, and Russia can be bribed with some oil deals, and no one else really matters. So, even if true, it brings to mind (albeit in an entirely more benign context) Stalin's rhetorical question, "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

The hunt for Osama Bin Laden was an easy sell. A war with Iraq would not enjoy the same authenticity. We would be attacking a nation based on what it might do: use biological or nuclear weapons against another country.

Well, actually, Chris, we'll be doing it for Saddam's complicity in what happened on September 11--he was one of Osama's accomplices. Or have you already forgotten that little meeting in Europe between Mr. Atta and the Security Minister of Iraq? We just haven't been making the case strongly, because we didn't want to have to deal with Iraq until we get Afghanistan well on its way to civilization.

But even if it is only preemptive, given Saddam's track record, that is sufficient justification in itself. It's not about what Saddam might do--he has already used chemical weapons against Iran and his own people. There should be no doubt that he will do so against us if he finds it advantageous.

Try and take slower, deeper breaths, Chris--I think you're a little oxygen deprived.

I would just like to point out that the polls show that 78 percent of the US population want us to attack Iraq. No reason given, just "should we attack Iraq or not?" sounds like a easy sell to the US to me. Dress it up a little better, and you could get another 5-10 percent out of it possibly.

As for international support, just remember that very few people outside Iraq (or even inside iraq for that matter) want Saddam in power. While they may, in *public*, condemn and and demand us not to go their, privately, they'd be jumping for joy the bully of the block gott kicked out for good. If they all came out and supported a US attack or action, and for some reason we did not follow through, they just became another possible target for retaliation by Saddam, or another Islamic terrorist group looking to erod US support in the Middle east.

I suspect the support from the US public comes from a combination of "let's finish what your pappa started" and remembering that Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer last summer.