The Iraq Debate

A debate is raging about whether we should attack Iraq. Voices such as former National Security Adviser Brent Scocroft and Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger are urging caution, saying the Bush administration should first lead a debate on the issue, high level Israeli officials and conservative war hawks in the U.S. say a pre-emptive strike against Saddam is necessary because he is so close to a weapon or weapons of mass destruction and that waiting will guarantee a disaster.

I'm all for debates. I've done a lot of them. But war isn't about consensus. It isn't about opinion polls. We elect our top leaders to lead. They have more information and intelligence than we will ever have. We know Saddam Hussein kills his own people and enslaves the living. We know he has invaded other countries and has tried to destabilize the region, putting himself in charge. He pays the families of homicide bombers. He is an evil man who heads an evil regime. The obligation of a superpower is to use that power for the good of others even if none stand with us. If Saddam remains, things will get worse and we will pay a severe penalty that goes with timidity and delay. I'm Cal Thomas in Washington.