Actually, we're disagreeing over what the U.S. government didn't say, but that's splitting hairs.

It says the allegations are real, not the ties. It repeatedly includes disclaimers such as "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention."

HRW does document horrific human-rights abuses in Iraq, but that has never been the White House's principal justification for this invasion, nor has Bush announced a worldwide war on religious intolerance and genocide. If he did, a lot of people who oppose this assault on Iraq would be behind it. However, this assault has always been touted as the first salvo in The War On Terrorism.

I'm not an ideologue about opposing this war: I can certainly be convinced. Heck, I'd prefer to be convinced. I'd love to feel the pride about this military incursion that some folks here obviously feel. But I think that if the White House or the Pentagon really had proof linking Saddam Hussein to terrorism, we'd have heard it by now from Ari Fleischer or Colin Powell. If such evidence existed, it would be in Bush's interest to share it with the world.

Now that we've launched the largest air assault in history, almost anything Iraq does on U.S. soil is a legitimate act of war by any standard. Surely there will be people who will then say, "See? We *told* you he was a terrorist." But that's like jabbing a bear with a sharp stick and then saying "See? I *told* you he was dangerous" when he bites your arm off.