I decided to take Mr. Michael Heiman at his word when he stated that he wants to instigate rational discussion about the U.S. occupation of Iraq. I just spent several minutes wading through the turgid bureaucratic prose of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 (2002). How he is able to interpret this as an authorization of the invasion of Iraq simply escapes me. It does speak of (unspecified) "serious consequences" if Saddam's regime does not comply with the demands in the resolution, but these consequences are, quite simply, unspecified. Perhaps either Mr. Heiman or the learned editors of the Empire can enlighten me.