"With war in the offing, Slate asked prominent people in politics, the arts, entertainment, business, and other fields to answer the following question: Do you favor a U.S. invasion of Iraq? The respondents run the gamut, from those who believe war is a bad idea (Spike Lee says we're being "hoodwinked" by the Bush administration) to those (like Mark Bowden) who think we should have invaded already. "

An interesting compendium of opinion compiled by Slate.  Some of the more interesting comments:

"Paul Berman is the author of Terror and Liberalism, to be published in March.
I do not favor an invasion of Iraq solely for the purpose of disarming the regime. If disarmament is the goal, there is no reason we shouldn't keep up a pressure short of invasion. I would favor an invasion for a larger purpose, though, which is this: to begin a roll-back of the several tendencies and political movements that add up to Muslim totalitarianism. I would favor an invasion whose purpose was to foment a liberal revolution in the Middle East. Unfortunately, Bush has not spoken of such a thing. He has not tried to summon the support of liberal revolutionaries from the Muslim world, or from any other part of the world. He will probably stage his invasion, anyway. I will protest against it, but not because I want him to withdraw the troops or to do less. I will protest because I want him to do more. In our present terrible predicament, a liberal revolution is our best hope—the best hope for ourselves, and the best hope for the Arab world."

...

"Charles Peters is the founding editor of the Washington Monthly.
No. This country has been conned by Karl Rove and the superhawks. They've succeeded in changing the subject from George W. Bush's failures and embarrassments, making Iraq number one on the national agenda for nearly six months at the expense of more important matters—like finding Osama Bin Laden, securing peace between Israel and Palestine, drastically improving the FBI's and CIA's ability to deal with terrorism, keeping nuclear weapons from being used by the nations that already have them, including North Korea, and engineering economic recovery here at home. If we end up paying practically all the bill for the war with Iraq and the subsequent military occupation, that money won't be there for badly needed health and education programs.

Thinking about Iraq alone—which is what the administration has tried to get us to do—it's not hard to get fired up about teaching Saddam a lesson. But once you think about these other higher priorities, the danger from Iraq just isn't imminent enough to justify war. War, however, does offer the probability of a quick and dramatic victory, and that, I fear, is why it has such enormous appeal for Bush and his colleagues."

...lastly...

"Sarah Vowell is a contributing editor for public radio's This American Life and the author of The Partly Cloudy Patriot.
I reminded myself to answer this question by writing it in my to-do list, just below "buy duct tape and plastic sheeting." The reason I would rather not rush off to war in Iraq is also a to-do list issue. The first thing on my foreign affairs post-it note is obliterating Bin Laden and the rest of al-Qaida, followed by giving North Korea the attention they apparently crave. Then, the U.S. might consider Colombia and/or Zimbabwe, after which it could indulge in a wistful moment pondering the legacy of Havel and how he was the only world leader who knew who Moe Tucker is. Finally, America could polish off the list by ganging up with the U.N. and deciding what we are all going to do about Saddam and how France is getting on our nerves."

The commander of Pakistan's air force, Air Chief Marshal Mushaf Ali Mir, his wife and several senior officers were among 17 people killed in a plane crash on Thursday, the air force said.

Air force spokesman Air Commodore Sarfraz Ahmed Khan said it was an accident. The air force Fokker F-27 turboprop in which Mir and the others were traveling crashed in northwestern Pakistan and all 17 people aboard were killed.

State-run Pakistan Television said the crash was caused by "technical reasons," but did not elaborate.

Hmm.  Odd, especially in light of this.  Bad luck?

"No one in the administration embodies this bottom line mentality more than Dick Cheney. The vice president is one of those ideological purists who never let little things like logic, morality, or mass murder interfere with the single-minded pursuit of profitability.

His on-again, off-again relationship with the Butcher of Baghdad is a textbook example of what modern moralists condemn as "situational ethics," an extremely convenient code that allows you to do what you want when you want and still feel good about it in the morning. In the Cheney White House (let's call it what it is), anything that can be rationalized is right.

The two were clearly on the outs back during the Gulf War, when Cheney was Secretary of Defense, and the first President Bush dubbed Saddam "Hitler revisited."

Then Cheney moved to the private sector and suddenly things between him and Saddam warmed up considerably. With Cheney in the CEO's seat, Halliburton helped Iraq reconstruct its war-torn oil industry with $73 million worth of equipment and services -- becoming Baghdad's biggest such supplier. Kinda nice how that worked out for the vice-president, really: oversee the destruction of an industry that you then profit from by rebuilding.

When, during the 2000 campaign, Cheney was asked about his company's Iraqi escapades, he flat out denied them. But the truth remains: When it came to making a buck, Cheney apparently had no qualms about doing business with "Hitler revisited."

And make no mistake, this wasn't a case of hard-nosed realpolitik -- the rationale for Rummy's cuddly overtures to Saddam back in '83 despite his almost daily habit of gassing Iranians. That, we were told, was all about "the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

No, Cheney's company chose to do business with Saddam after the rape of Kuwait. After Scuds had been fired at Tel Aviv and Riyadh. After American soldiers had been sent home from Desert Storm in body bags.

And in 2000, just months before pocketing his $34 million Halliburton retirement package and joining the GOP ticket, Cheney was lobbying for an end to U.N. sanctions against Saddam. "

Nothing groundbreaking or new here, but Arianna puts together a nice summary of why I have a hard time taking the "It's all about the Evil" arguments seriously.   The fact that Saddam is evil just makes a nice pretty package in which to wrap the money.

[via BoingBoing]

"Today I woke up in a Dictatorship. Up to now Hugo Chavez and his hoodlums had been using the law to "hide" the repressive and intolerant nature of this Government. Last night they detained one of the two most important leaders of the opposition and an order is out to capture the Head of the Federation of Unions (CTV) the other visible leader of the opposition. The charge: treason and inciting rebellion. This is political, this is repressive and coupled with assasinations last Monday indicates to me that Chavez has decided to step out of Democracy. The charges against the two most important leaders of the opposition are just an excuse to neutralize them and silence others. The Government quickly charges two political opponents on these charges, but assasins from April are still free or not charged, no investigation has been made of other gunmen on Dec. 6th. and many other political and violent crimes have yet to be investigated. But this one has, with efficiency. Maybe the world will now understand what is going on here in Venezuela."

Venezuela takes another turn for the worst.  Maybe those on the left who are screaming that we're living in a dictatorship should take a look at Chavez and Company to see what one is really like.  Stay tuned to The Devil's Excrement for further developements.