http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20021121-084739-1724r It doesn't take much to find op-eds and other opinions that view Bush as a warmonger, someone who can't wait for war with Iraq, either because of his father's failure (still can't quite understand that one; seemed like a success to me) or some other sinister intention. Even if some won't go quite as far as labelling him a warmonger, they will say his threats against Iraq and troop and supply deployments are incendiary, a destabilizing force in the Middle East. But is this posturing not necessary to demonstrate that the U.S. is serious about the inspections, and this is not another half-hearted effort? In dealing with a leader who once said if the U.S. attacked Kuwait there would be "rivers of blood" (if I remember correctly), what other tone can Bush adopt? Are these strong speeches and deployments not necessary to keep the pressure on so that inspections can occur? What other approach could be taken to ensure Iraq's cooperation?