This is a tough time to be an opinion writer.

I find myself in an unusual predicament. On the one hand, I know Saddam Hussein is a psychotic tyrant who uses innocent civilians as shields during war. He uses chemical weapons on his own people. He defies all logic and reason in his quest to amass "weapons of mass destruction."

Saddam scoffs at the authority of the United Nations. He thwarts U.N. weapons inspection teams. He all but sticks his tongue out and singsongs nyaa-nyaa-nyaa-nyaa-nyaa-nyaa to the entire civilized world.

There is no question in my mind. The attack on Iraq is justified. If ever there was a leader who invited social and economic disaster upon his people, it is Saddam. If ever there was a leader who deserved to have cruise missiles lobbed into his palace, it is Saddam.

There really is no bad time to drop bombs on Saddam.

But therein lies the predicament.

While I fully agree that military strikes against Saddam are justified, I can't help but wonder what motivated President Bill Clinton to launch the strikes on impeachment eve.

It is very difficult for me to believe that this was all some kind of bizarre coincidence. Especially since Clinton has been fooling around with Saddam Hussein for about six years now. Ever since the 1991 Gulf War when President George Bush pushed Saddam around, Saddam has been playing a political chess match with the U.S. and the U.N.

Remember when Bush didn't go all the way to Baghdad and take Saddam out?

Everybody said he should have. Remember his response? The U.N. aim was only to liberate Kuwait. Not to destroy Saddam.

OK, great. So Saddam agrees to the terms of his Gulf War thrashing by the allied forces. Then, almost immediately, he starts the cat and mouse stuff.

So for six years under Clinton, we put up with his nonsense. We have this weak, namby-pamby Iraq policy. We draw multiple lines in the sand and dare Saddam to cross them. He crosses them. We draw more lines in the sand. He crosses those too. We drop a couple missiles on him a year or so ago. He promises to comply with the United Nations.

Just about six weeks ago, we are at the brink of firing a few more missiles, but at the last minute - within a half hour of certain military action, we're told - Saddam agrees to let the weapons inspectors in again. Yeah, right. Who believed him? Not me. Then he starts giving the weapons inspectors a hard time.

So now, finally, Wednesday is the day to strike.

I am sorry. I almost feel guilty for having this view. But I find it extremely difficult to believe that after all these years of wimpy Iraq policy, a military strike became an urgent necessity just hours before the historic impeachment vote in the U.S. House of Representatives. I just can't believe it wasn't at least partially politically motivated.

And here's why.

Listen to what House Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephardt had to say. He implored Republicans to postpone any move on impeachment "until the hostilities have ended. It shouldn't come up as long as our troops are in harm's way."

That will probably be sometime next year, after the next Congress takes over. How convenient for the president that would be. You see, if this House of Representatives doesn't act on the articles of impeachment sent to it by the Judiciary Committee, the next Congress can't. That would mean starting the whole process all over again in the Judiciary Committee after the first of the year.

That's not likely to happen. The Republicans won't go for it.

That will just give the Democrats more ammo to use against the Republicans. Impeaching the commander in chief while our boys are overseas risking their lives.

What a difference a few poll points can make, eh?

Not too long ago Gephardt was urging Republicans to hurry up and get this impeachment stuff behind us. But now, as the poll numbers start to slip and Clinton's chances of avoiding impeachment grew dim, it's OK to postpone things while we sort out all this Iraq mess.

None of this is to say this is one of those "Wag the Dog" ploys made infamous by the movie of the same name. In the film, a fictional president gets in a bind and has his PR people create a war.

No, this military action was not created by Clinton. Saddam gets all the blame. His threat to humanity is real and well documented. He needs to be stopped.

I sincerely hope this time we finish the job, but I am skeptical. I wonder if we aren't bombing empty buildings.

Saddam took us to the brink of military action six weeks ago. He knew then he was about to get bombed. Is it beyond the realm of probability that he hid his weapons since then?

According to Congressional debate on the House floor Thursday, we have deployed troops to the Persian Gulf 27 times over the past six years.

If we bomb Saddam for a few days, what's to say we won't be right back in this same situation again in the future?

I would guess the whole weapons inspection program is history now, so where do we go from here?

I think anything short of toppling Saddam from power is inviting a repeat of this confrontation.

I fully support and admire the men and women who are putting their lives on the line for this president. I hold those who serve in the armed forces in the highest regard.

As for the timing of this military action, I tend to agree with U.S. Sen. Dan Coats.

"This is a time when American leadership and credibility is critical," Coats said. "It is extremely unfortunate that we have a president whose authority and credibility is so compromised. While a policy to force Iraq to comply with inspections is justified, the timing of this action, just 16 hours before the House of Representatives begins impeachment proceedings, will be challenged by allies and adversaries alike. America's credibility is the issue. It is past time for this president to recognize that his leadership and authority are damaged beyond repair. I continue to believe that the only honorable course of action left to the president is resignation." [[In-content Ad]]