Check your assumptions: Lileks, accordingly, assumes that when we invade Iraq, everything will be better. You, importantly, raise the issue that we don't know where all this stuff is coming from. Terrorists live in every country of the planet. The anthrax is as likely to have come from a disgruntled microbiologist as Mohammed Atta's pissed off younger brother. We have little to no proof of Saddam sponsoring anything signifcant against us, directly. Is that to say he won't? No. But I go back to my slippery slope argument, if we do it with Iraq, we had better do it with N. Korea, Iran, Nigeria, Lybia, Indonesia and Pakistan. I mean, where do the pre-emptive strikes end? Yes, Saddam is the worst of the lot as far as open, nationalized aggression goes (let's face it, border invasions just don't happen that much anymore), but it's hard to argue that he hates us anymore than the rest. His "potential energy" is the greatest, but you tread a delicate line between aggressor and defender in this situation.