Washingtonpost.com: Live Online

As the U.S. is sending over troops to the Persian Gulf, Saddam Hussein is urging the Iraqi people to resist the U.S. invasion. The discovery of 11 empty chemical warheads by U.N. weapons inspectors may offer enough evidence for the U.S. to go to war. Iraq claims the warhead remnants were listed in earlier disclosures of the previous Gulf War. The White House called the weapons a breach of an anti-arms U.N. resolution and adds that Hussein is in violation of several U.N. rules.

Mel Goodman, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, was online Tuesday, Jan. 21 at 2 p.m. ET, to discuss the risks of war and the implications for international security.

The transcript follows below.

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.

Mel Goodman: Just want to introduce myself: I'm Mel Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and a professor of National Security at the National War College. I'm expressing my own views today and not those of the National War College or the Department of Defense. So, let's begin.....

Athens, Ga.: Pre-war, post-war, no war, etc., how does Armenia figure into the Bush administration's short- and long-run plans for the region?

Mel Goodman: One of the serious shortcomings of the Bush policy toward Iraq is the failure to incorporate a strategic view regarding the role of Iraq's neighbors and Israel and the Palestinians, let alone the countries of the Caucasus. So don't expect Armenia to be a factor in the thinking of the Bush administration regarding Iraq.

Maryland: If the US does not attack Iraq, how long will it be before they have nuclear weapons? Isn't it true that Iraq would have nuclear weapons now if our Israeli allies hadn't bombed their facility in 1981?

Mel Goodman: There is no question that Saddam Hussein had a policy for developing nuclear weapons and that several countries, including France, were providing technology to assist such a goal. The Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor was an important step against the program and a step toward enlightening the international community. Today is somewhat different, however. There is a regime in place that deters Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that Iraq has a program to develop such weapons.

New Orleans, La.: There have been several statements concerning the possibility of fighting a two-front war; one in Iraq and the other in North Korea. How can this happen without a draft? Is Representative Charles Rangel right about why we should re- institute a draft? Also, since women have been successful warriors before in the Persian Gulf will they too be a part of the draft? Why or Why not?

Mel Goodman: The United States is not in a position to fight such a two-front war, despite the rhetoric that comes from official and unofficial circles. Nor could we handle two such crises, which explains the current effort to downplay the more serious scenario in North Korea. There is no chance of reinstituting the draft; Rep. Rangel knows that, but he has the more important goal of expanding the debate on HOW this country goes to war and WHY this country goes to war. In any event, I don't expect a draft, which moots the question regarding women in the draft.

Mclean, Va.: Have all of the churches in America lost their moral compass. I was glad to hear Correta Scott King come out against the war. I have not heard Billy Graham's stand. George Bush said he admires Christ. Christ said blessed are the peacemakers, not the war makers.

Mel Goodman: The question regarding our moral compass is an important one and the debate should be a wide one. We are taking important steps away from collective security, the proper use of force, proportionality and the use of force, etc. etc. Clearly, the use of force should be a last resort policy, but that does not appear to be the case regarding the current buildup against Iraq.

Washington, D.C.: Why does the Bush administration insist Iraq comply with UN resolutions but not Israel? And does this double standard make the world safer or more dangerous for Americans?

Mel Goodman: Yes, the Bush administration has a double-standard regarding Israel and previous administrations have had a double-standard regarding Israeli nuclear weapons. Clearly we need to develop a more strategic point of view regarding the Middle East and the Persian Gulf that includes steps for better relations with the Islamic states and more pressure on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

Washington, D.C.: Do you see this war as especially risky given the fact that it will be a preventive war, which will violate the UN Charter, will violate international legal precedent and will go against the norms of our democratic republic?

washingtonpost.com: Bush Warns Against Inaction on Iraq as Some Allies Voice Skepticism (Post, Jan. 21, 2003)

Mel Goodman: I believe that another war against Iraq in this current time frame would violate many normative principles regarding collective security, the role of the UN and the Security Council, and the proper use of force. The US should be taking the lead in building an alliance against the introduction of WMD in Iraq, which requires a diplomatic offensive and not sole reliance on military intruments.

Long Beach, Calif.: Greetings, Mr. Goodman,
Seeing that 122mm rockets are attached as artillery in military Battle order, and the rockets are considered "artillery ammunition", do you think it is misleading to constantly refer to these as "CHEMICAL WARHEADS"? I also think the range of these rockets is less than the max. range of today, but cannot find any paper that has taken the initiative to compare the lesser specs of the early 90's MBRL's with the new max. range of 20 kilometers. Is this fair reporting? Why not inform the public correctly?

Mel Goodman: I agree that these are essential artillery ammunition with very short ranges, probably even less than 20 kilometers. At the same time, these warheads appear to be compatible for chemical weapons and should have been accounted for in Iraqi tabulations. In any event, they do not represent the "smoking gun" that the administration is calling for and are not a reason to go to war. But they do represent a reason for keeping pressure on Saddam Hussein and they do justify the US effort to impose serious inspection regimes on Iraq. The US should be commended for rallying the international community and the UN to install such a regime....and now we should give it the opportunity to do its job.

Arlington, Va.: It seems to me that what has happened in North Korea since 1994 makes a clear case why we should take out Saddam Hussein. We sat by and allowed North Korea to develop a nuclear weapon and now they can "blackmail" us. We should never allow a corrupt dicatator like Saddam Hussein to be able to obtain that power, with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

Mel Goodman: I would argue just the opposite. North Korea is a very good example of the use of diplomacy to reach our goals of non-proliferation. The 1994 Agreed Framework was a good step in the direction if denuclearization of North Korea and did lead to a nuclear freeze and a serious period of non-testing. Unfortunately, the Bush administration retreated from diplomacy and resorted to bullying rhetoric (e.g., axis of hate and axis of evil) to address Pyongyang. Now we must return to the tools of diplomacy in North Korea and apply the lessons learned to Iraq.

Washington, D.C.: Can a country that is disarmed disarm? The UN isn't finding anything of substance, and yet Dubya complains that the Iraqis aren't disarming. What, specifically, is the problem?

Mel Goodman: The Unscom inspection effort worked in the 1990s for the most part, destroying more strategic weaponry than U.S. force did in Desert Storm. Now we should give the UN and IAEA more time to do its job, then make a net assessment of the results. Thus far, Iraq and Saddam Hussein are cooperative with the inspection regime, which is extremely important...and argues against any imminent use of force.

Mobile, Ala.: Which would lead to a more stable, peaceful future in the region and beyond: Saddam is deposed by Iraqis (exiled, assassinated, whatever) and a new Iraqi leadership emerges from within, or Saddam is deposed by the US and a new Iraqi leadership is authorized and protected by Washington?

Mel Goodman: There will not be political stability in the region until Saddam Hussein is removed or leaves his position of power. But there are greater chances for political stability if an Iraqi opposition is responsible for such a step. The use of force by the US to remove Saddam Hussein will lead to greater discontinuity in the region and threaten all of the conservative Arab states that we need in the war against terrorism. It is noteworthy that we seem to have forgotten the importance of the battle against terrorism. Any war against Iraq would be a distraction from that battle. The French are probably right in terming us as too impatient.

Alexandria, Va.: "There is a regime in place that deters Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence that Iraq has a program to develop such weapons."

What regime would that be? And why should we assume that Iraq would hew to that any more closely than Hussein has followed any other UN regulations issued against his empire?

Mel Goodman: I simply believe that inspections in the 1990s were largely successful, destroying serious amounts of strategic material. And today's inspections are going rather well, getting adequate cooperation from Iraq and gaining access to Iraqi scientists who have important intelligence. Iraq's use of WMD is not imminent, so why should the use of force be imminent. Let's see what the inspectors learn...and then make our decisions.

Virginia: Why Iraq and why not Iran? Israel backed Iran during the 1980-1988 wars and there are more Jewish people living in Iran than Iraq (none).

Mel Goodman: The more important question is why the United States doesn't develop a closer relationship with Iran if Iraq is such a threat. As the Chinese say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again, we are seeing the absence of a larger strategic policy in the region. In any event, I don't believe that Sharon is a strategist (or a man of peace) and don't use the Israelis as a model in the conduct of US foreign policy.

Arlington, Va.: The Bush Administration has not articulated much of a policy regard what would happen if Saddam Hussein is killed or exiled. Do they have a plan? Why aren't they talking about it? And, a bigger issue I think is what gives us the right to decide who is allowed to have nukes and who isn't? Certainly crazy people like Saddam are dangerous and them having nukes isn't a very safe thing. But our having nukes doesn't exactly make the world safe either. Or Russia, or Ukraine, or India or Pakistan or any of the other countries that already have them. Why are we allowed to say we can have them but country X cannot while country Y can?

Mel Goodman: I certainly agree with your implicit assumption that the world would be better off if the United States worked toward denuclearization via the Non-proliferation treaty, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the Missile Technology Control Regime rather than developed policies of dominance and preemptive attack. We need a large strategic debate in this country on these major issues. Regarding a policy of post-Saddam Hussein, don't have any illusions that we have anything in place for an Iraq without Saddam, any more than we had a policy in place in 1991 after the military defeat of Iraqi forces.

Takoma Park, Md.: From the tone of your answers, I detect a hint of pacifism.

In your view, would there ever be a case where the U.S. should pre-emptively strike another country? Or should we sit back and wait for them to kill innocent people before responding with force?

Mel Goodman: I am not a pacifist, but I do believe that military force should be last resort and that there can be no preemptive attack with evidence or intelligence of an imminent threat. Certainly, if we had good information of such an attack, then we would be morally and politically correct in striking first. But Iraq is simply not a threat to the United States and we have the forces in place to deter him from being a threat to his neighbors as well.

Alexandria, Va.: If Saddam Hussein has demonstrated anything over the last 13 years it is the ability to finesse, side-step, outmaneuver, and reduce to farce every "regime" that has so far been thrown up to contain him and see that he complies with U.N. resolutions. The U.S. and Britain are the only nations still trying to uphold the "rule of law" developed by working through the United Nations. France and most other nations have allowed the U.N. resolutions to ring hollow. Masquerading behind "not rushing to war" the French and other nations are exchanging peace in the long run for short term financial gains.

washingtonpost.com: Bush Warns Against Inaction on Iraq as Some Allies Voice Skepticism (Post, Jan. 21, 2003)

Mel Goodman: I certainly agree that the US and Britain should be commended for persuading and pressuring the UN and the Security Council to accept an aggressive inspection regime. And I agree that the US must lead the international community to hold Saddam's feet to the fire in living up to the resolutions. But I believe that we have been more successful in these objectives that you are willing to allow.

Sandusky, Ohio: How is it possible to state that Iraq is "cooperating" with inspections, when even Hans Blix has agreed that the Declaration is dreadfully incomplete? At this stage, Iraq would only be cooperating if it had made a complete, accurate, and fully forthcoming disclosure. And can we all agree, please, that it is laughable for a regime to state that it destroyed the records that would demonstrate it has disarmed itself and/or been disarmed? In other words, Saddam's palace dogs ate his homework. Give us a break.

Mel Goodman: Hans Blix was cited in the Washington Post over the weekend as being satisfied with Iraqi cooperation with the inspection effort....and most recently satisfied with the inspector's access to Iraqi scientists, which is an extremely important step. Earlier, Blix noted the inspection successes regarding the Iraqi palaces and other goverment buildings. Of course, there is a cat and mouse game to all of this, which requires continued pressure. The authorities on the ground appear to believe that there has been adequate cooperation thus far to do the required job. That does not mean full cooperation, but the job isn't over as yet, and we will know more on January 27 when the inspectors report to the UN.

Plantation, Fla.: I agree that the Bush administration should be commended for goading the UN to institute rigorous inspections. My question is, could they have accomplished this without the bellicose attitude? Additionally, would the inspections be as fruitful without the distinct possibility of invasion?

Mel Goodman: I believe that the administration had to be serious about the possible use of military force in order to get the Security Council to act in the appropriate way. I believe that our rhetoric has been too bellicose on too many matters over the past year, but I'm not sure that is essential to the task of learning what we need to know about the Iraqi military inventory. Certainly if the US has more knowledge that the inspectors on the inventory, it should be shared with the inspectors and briefed to an international and domestic audience. JFK did that during the Cuban missile crisis with excellent results.

Madison, Wis.: You wrote: "North Korea is a very good example of the use of diplomacy to reach our goals of non-proliferation."

How can you say this? North Korea developed nuclear weapons during the 1990s, breaking their treaty with the U.S.

Wouldn't it be preferable to stop tyrants from getting WMD BEFORE rather than after they develop them?

Mel Goodman: The North Korean picture is more complicated than you suggest. There were successes regarding the plutonium reactor and the testing program for nuclear weapons during most of the 1990s. North Korea would be far more threatening with the 1994 Agreed Framework. There are obvious tradeoffs and opportunites with Pyongyang, involving assistance with energy reactors and food deliveries. Such assistance and careful diplomacy would lead to more success regarding North Korean strategic weapons programs in my estimation. Too me, Kim Jong-il is signalling that he wants to end the isolation of the hermit kingdom, which has been frozen in place for the past ten years. We should try to learn how serious he is about such a signal.

Washington, D.C.: "And I agree that the US must lead the international community to hold Saddam's feet to the fire in living up to the resolutions."

But how does one hold Saddam's feet to the fire? It seems to me that the current inspection process is the direct result of the threat of force, not diplomatic pressure.

Mel Goodman: Certainly there has been a combination of military and economic steps that have led to the containment of Saddam Hussein. The no-fly zones in the north and south are part of such a policy. I'm merely saying that these steps are working and that a full-scale invasion is unnecessary and counter-productive. The fragmentation of Iraq will not lead to greater stability in the region, which is something the global community (minus Tony Blair) is trying to tell us.

Harrisburg, Pa.: With so much international focus on Iraq, aren't they effectively contained against striking against anyone else? What possible offensive military strategies remain for Saddam Hussein?

Mel Goodman: The CIA believes that Saddam Hussein is contained, and I agree. Indeed, CIA director Tenet believes that the best scenario for Iraqi use of WMD is in the wake of a US invasion. So our policy appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

London, England: In 1998 I believe it was, Madeline Albright was asked if it was the worth the price paid by the death of 500,000 babies in Iraq due to the sanctions imposed, she replied YES it is a price worth paying if it means that Saddam is stopped from developing weapons of mass destruction, the fact that we are now talking about going to war due to Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, does that mean the policy of sanctions has failed and the death of those 500,000 babies actually was a price paid for nothing, where is out humanity gone? I only wish someone could ask Madeline this question.

Mel Goodman: My guess is that Madeline Albright regrets her earlier remarks. She has certainly been unusually quiet in the current run-up to war.

Southern Maryland: Although I feel Hussein needs to go, my concern is that a US invasion could destabilize many governments in the Middle East. We could end up turning every Muslim nation from Morocco to Indonesia against us. How realistic is that scenario?

Mel Goodman: I believe your scenario is very realistic. And certainly a reason for not resorting to force. Again, if the war against terrorism is a number one international issue then why we considering a diversion from that issue and why are we resorting to a policy that will increase terrorism against US interests and the US itself.

Melbourne, Australia: Dear Mel: An Australian Broadcasting Corporation poll in progress has support of a war unilaterally determined or with the SC coerced by the US down to 6%. There appears to be two parallel phenomena running here.
1. A crash in usual support for the US and belief in its stated rationales;
2. An intense distrust of politicians: yours, ours, British and the more venal of the Arab state rulers.
Probably the reasons most influential here (apparently) are Western confiscation of oil resources and Western political behaviour confirming the Huntington (clash of civilisations) thesis. Australians recognise the rights of developing nations and there is little demand here for a restoration of colonial empires. Categorically we are not anti-Muslim, otherwise racist or anti-semitic. If all this is correct, are these not healthy developments? And will things never be the same again? Regards, Bill

Mel Goodman: I believe that the international community is largely opposed to the way the US is moving toward war and the US emphasis on regime change, another term for coup d'etat. With the end of the Cold War, we should have been developing the security architecture for collective solutions to these problems, instead of US reliance on military force. I believe that the international reaction is healthy and that it serves to put pressure on US decisionmaking. Clearly there are differences within the administration on all of these issues.

Long Beach, Calif.: President Bush stated today that "Surely
our friends have learned lessons from the past". With that in mind, why is it verboten to discuss the Bush clan's documented and unchallenged history as open supporters of Adolf Hitler's "miracle" of the 1930's? I see no reason to avoid this as a telling example of history's lessons, and am perplexed that it is not reported in major papers. Am I off on this?

Mel Goodman: Since I have no idea what you are talking about, then I would have to say that you are not spot on.

Arlington, Va.: I would like to pose a hypothesis for you to evaluate: the REAL reason the administration is pushing a war against Iraq is completely unrelated to the WMD issue but rather is that they simply want to occupy Iraq and have a forward base to use in the war on terror and as a possible ancillary benefit a "model" Arab state akin to West Germany, postwar Japan, etc. (the corollary of this is that no matter what the inspectors find, the war will happen anyway).

Mel Goodman: I don't believe that Iraq is needed or wanted as a forward base against terrorism. Indeed, occupation of Iraq will make the terrorism campaign more difficult to wage, not less so. And I doubt if we have any illusions about a model Arab state despite the silly administration rhetoric about democracy in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq. The Arab experience with democratic reform is not a healthy one for stability in the near term.

Atlanta, Ga.: What happened to the war on terrorism? Where the heck is the murderer bin Laden? When did our focus shift from the terror war to solely removing the dictator and human rights abuser, Saddam Hussein? There is something to be said of our preoccupation with Saddam with the war on terror relegated to the background.

Mel Goodman: I happen to agree with the thrust of your remarks. The obvious slowdown in the war against terrorism and the relative unimportance of the military instrument in the next campaign against terrorism have unfortunately led to a preoccupation with the use of force as a successful instrument against Iraq. It would be a terrible and costly diversion.

Long Beach, Calif.: It seems as though Iran was corraled into the Axis simply because they needed a third wheel. Why is Iran out of the news? Shouldn't they be talked about, if only to highlight the contrivance of "Axis" rhetoric?

Mel Goodman: Ironically Iran is the best example of democratic reform in the Islamic areas of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. We should be looking for ways to improve relations with Iran as part of a greater strategic geopolitical policy in the region. Instead, we seem bent on alienating the Iranians. The axis of evil reference was terribly gratuitous and ill-timed.

Alexandria, Va.: "The no-fly zones in the north and south are part of such a policy. I'm merely saying that these steps are working and that a full-scale invasion is unnecessary and counter-productive."

Iraq has been firing upon jets patrolling the no-fly zones for years, in violation of the UN restrictions and terms of surrender. How is that "working"?

Mel Goodman: Your facts are off. The no-fly zones were unilaterally imposed by the US and Britain and are not part of any UN regime or resolution. Nevertheless, they do keep Saddam Hussein in his box and they do prevent threats against the Kurds and the Shiites. So, yes, they are working.

Virginia: Will Saudi Arabia be our next enemy?

Mel Goodman: Unlikely....due to the OIL....the price of which is climbing to $33 a barrel thanks in part to all the war talk.

Boston, Mass.: How do you view the role of large anti-war rallies, like those the country saw this weekend, in shpaing the debate over Iraq. It seems truly remarkable that so many people have come out before any war has begun. I am sure there is a wide range of opinion among protesters, but the general opposition to war seems tangible. Would you agree?

Mel Goodman: I have believed that the anti-war feelings have been there right along, but that the media have shown no interest in covering the protests until this weekend. Compare the media handling of the protests in October to the protests on January 18-19. The difference is day and night, and indicates that if people speak up the press will eventually have to pay attention. (By the way, the Wash Post put the October protest in its Metro section; the January protest made National news.)

Arlington, Va.: As part of the risks of war, how do you see the potential risks of sending reporters out with troops, which could end up in a breach of important military information or could get soldiers killed trying to save reporters?

Mel Goodman: There is a two-edged risk here: first, the reporters may indeed get in the way and cause some interruption of military activities. More likely is the risk that the military will coopt the reporters and the press will be less aggressive in presenting the news. This is not an easy issue for the military or journalistic communities.

Laurel, Md.: Does your organization evaluate the risks of doing nothing in Iraq?

I believe one of the most important questions involving any prospective military action like this one is it's net effect on terrorist or rogue states - does Western inaction and the promise of no reprisal embolden them, or does a "cruel" invasion motivate them and aid their recruitment? How would you answer that question?

Mel Goodman: I believe that even the most nihilist terrorist organizations, such as Al Qaeda, realize that the free ride of the Clinton era is over and that there are terrorist targets out there. Conversely, war against Iraq would only create a greater pool of terrorists and lead to more problems for the US, and not fewer.

Vienna, Va.: Why are the French seemingly so set against the idea of war with Iraq? They bear little risk and don't have to participate yet they are protecting a horrific regime. Is this another case of the French feeling inferior in the face of American power or something else?

Mel Goodman: Maybe this is simply a case of the French believing that the US has not presented a good and adequate for going to war against Iraq. Certainly the French have taken risks in military operations in the Balkans and Lebanon in the past and will do so again when French national interest believes it is warranted.

Alexandria, Va.: In the months leading up to January 1991, volumes were written about the dire risks to the Allied forces in the event of a military action against Iraq. To be sure, our forces were under fire and lives were lost, but the US death toll from actual combat was (if I recall correctly) less than what happened in training and force build-up during Desert Shield, and a very small fraction of the losses some experts were projecting.

Why, then, should the US public take AS seriously the "dire risks" warnings and predictions of US casualties against the same Iraqi army? It surely is largely manned by many of the thousands of Iraqi troops that surrendered so valiantly to anything with Allied markings after seeing their comrades in arms get immolated. I don't want to minimize the threat to our troops, but we've heard this tune before.

Mel Goodman: I agree that we exaggerated the capabilities and numbers of the Iraqi military in 1990 and 1991, but if we are talking about a scenario involving occupation of Iraq and running the government of Baghdad, then you are talking about greater risks and greater chances for casualties. This is a different tune.

Houston, TX: Over the last week there has been talk of a Saudi-led effort to either convince Saddam Hussein to step down, or convince the Iraqi military to overthrow him. If the Saudis end up pulling this off, doesn't that say a lot about what they're able to accomplish in the region when they want to? To put it another way, if they can bring down Saddam Hussein, they can crack down on Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad, and find Osama bin Laden.

Mel Goodman: Getting Saddam Hussein to leave peacefully would be miracle number one. And now you want the Saudis to perform additional miracles. They don't have the leverage against the groups you cite.

Gaithersburg, Md.: Could the seemingly cooperative attitude of Iraq and the threatening posture of N. Korea be deliberately orchestrated by them to push the US off-balance? In my observation, no one in the media discusses this possibility, but the coordinated actions of these two axis of evil nations might be seen by them as an effective force-multiplier. Thus, some commentators and politicians wonder aloud why the US prefers a diplomatic approach to the country with nukes, yet builds a military presence around a country which has none. But of course, a military operation in N. Korea (China to the north, Seoul in range of artillery on the south) might be more of a hornet's nest than an attach on Iraq, so NK plays hard ball from the outset and US foreign policy looks wacky as a result. Obviously, the US is not falling for it. So, my question is, do NK and Iraq talk? Are their positions more than coincidental? And, if so, could proof of that conspiracy be offered by the US as sufficient reason to pull the handle in Iraq? Your thoughts. Thank you. -SG

Mel Goodman: I certainly agree that the North Koreas wisely picked a moment of opportunity against the US to raise the nuclear issue and to threaten greater moves in their WMD program. But I don't agree that there is strategic collusion between the Iraqis and North Koreas. They have separate national interests and pursuits and both have strong and experienced leaders in carrying out strategic policies, however bluntly and ineptly they do so. We have serious problems on our hands, but I'm afraid that we have created some of it with our own bellicose rhetoric, our retreat from fifty years of containment and deterrence, and too much emphasis on military force.

Mel Goodman: Unfortunately, I'm out of time. Thank you very much for the excellent questions and the wonderful dialogue. I believe that it is the kind of dialogue that we need in this country and that a congressional debate of these serious issues would not be a bad place to start. Thanks again. Mel Goodman

washingtonpost.com:

That wraps up today's show. Thanks to everyone who joined the discussion.

Stay Tuned to Live Online:
Chuck Barris: 'Confessions of a Dangerous Mind', 3:30 p.m. ET

Keep up with the latest in news, sports, politics and entertainment with washingtonpost.com e-mail newsletters.

Personalize your Post with mywashingtonpost.com. Get customized news, traffic, weather and more.

| |



	<img SRC="washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/redesign/adv_discusssion.htm" width=125 height=110 border=0>