The Takeout Option -- there are at least six different scenarios circulating which attempt to explain the exact driving forces behind the Bush administration.

• Liberation of Iraq
• Disarmament
• Regime Change
• Access to Iraqi Oil
• Exile for Saddam
• We are already committed - too late to withdraw troops

What is the lowest common denominator in all these strategies?

Simple. The removal of one 220 pound not overly nice individual, by the name of "Saddam Hussein"

Can and will this singular objective attain any of the above goals?

You would think so. After all, the western world is bending over backwards asserting it has no disagreement with the Iraqi people. In fact, we consider them allies.

So why endanger them, particularly if we suspect Saddam will place large pockets of Iraqis close to, inside, or on top of strategic targets - those intended to be vaporized within the first 20 minutes of the gigantic wave of smart bombs aimed at Baghdad

I am under the belief that the United states has 'bunker busting' munitions orders of magnitude more powerful (and penetrating) than those Bush I almost discharged over Baghdad in 1991.

Under the premise that Hussein spends the night (randomly) at any of 18 or so fortified, earthquake-proof, underground bunkers, I think the Pentagon Warlords have the competence to hit them all in a coordinated attack, say at 4 in the morning, local time.

Will there be collateral damage?? -- Of course, many loyal staffers will die in the attack - but considering the likelihood that we could deepfry one S. Hussein, without committing landbased troops, and instead arrive in Baghdad by tickertape parade, to meet the queue of Iraqi leaders lining up for consideration, it is, in my book, a good shot, and one which should appeal to the self-admitted gambling instinct of our Commander-in-Chief.

The great minds in the Pentagon could even try this as the inaugural move of the actual, planned attack. If it works, we will know almost instantaneously - and if so, we halt the next wave.

If Mr. H somehow manages to shimmy out from under this first wave of missiles, then we push the red button and implement Plan B.

(January 30th, 2003 -- 9:40 AM EST // link)

the average $1100 tax cut - Oh I can concoct a scenario supporting the drop in taxes from $1175 to $45.

Jimmy and Betty Bowers had a shotgun marriage last December because in a weak moment they fell to the sin of PREMARITAL sex. Living in separate apartments during 2002, they had no deductions and filed a form 1040EZ for the year: Income taxes: $1175

This year, happily married, they have TWINS, Jimmy Jr and Tiffany, and as a wedding gift from a wealthy family philanthropist receive a down payment to a very nice, suburban home in a right Christian community. With property taxes approaching $10,000, and $2,000 tax credit for their precious newborn, they are now eking out a hardscrabble middle class existence, but their tax liability falls to $45 as they are, given their income, mortgage and property tax liabilities, FLAT BROKE.

This is a utopian story, and next January, the lovely family of four will sit next to Laura Bush and receive national television exposure as "the typical family of four I referred to a year ago".

the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland and Denmark, plus Mr. Havel, the Czech president, issued a joint communique wherein they assert unity of support for United States. OpinionJournal proudly trumpets the achievement as proof that Europe, other than the weaseling Germany and France, maintains the stance that "United We Stand"

A very nicely drafted memorandum. The word 'unity' appears throughout, and I got close to teary-eyed when I realized the deep sense of gratitude which still pervades the European Community for the help the United States gave them before and during WWII.

However, I think we need to analyze exactly where these smaller European nations stand in unison. I see a lot of references to the UN, and peaceful cooperation, and continued pressure on Saddam.

I do not hear a single rattle of a saber. The contributing nations are committed to applying continued diplomatic qua UN pressure - the proof of the pudding will come once the first shot is fired. It costs these prime ministers nothing politically to openly support the US in a "let's do it via the UN" gesture. Sending troops to the Middle East could well cost each and every one of these prime ministers his job at the next election. And as you know, in Europe general elections don't follow a calendar. They are called whenever a ruling party or coalition loses a 'confidence vote.'

Let's hold our collective breaths.

I spoke to my sister yesterday who lives in Denmark. We spoke at length about the impending war with Iraq, and she asked me how America could remain so hawkish when "every parent" will shudder at the thought of his/her son going off to war.

"That is not really a concern here," I answered her. "In the States, we no longer have a draft. Our armed forces are made up entirely by professional soldiers who willingly enter the military in order to obtain a relatively well-paid position."

Silence on the other end. Then a wrenched outcry:

"Oh, my GOD --- now it all makes sense to me!"

Quite apart from the possible racial undertones of Rangel's proposal to reinstate the draft, to a European observer (who is totally unaware of these undertones), the question whether every eighteen-year-old faces the military draft apparently makes all the difference in the world when it comes to understanding the hawkish attitude of the United States - a concept they still have tremendous difficulty embracing.

Fear of terror -- Do we here in the United States have a global monopoly claim on Angst.

It seems to me that Iraq's neighbors, followed by Israel and Continental Europe, and then England, Iceland, and lastly countries like Canada, should clamor, in decreasing decibels, for the removal/disarmament of the current regime in Iraq.

If none of these countries has come begging, asking us to PLEASE, come remove the threat to their nations, then I think it is reasonable to ask a dual question:

• Are we the only ones seeing the danger?
• Are we that much more afraid?

I don't have a setup for commentary - but if you will bother to email me, I will reproduce the answers/comments in my next post.