Jim Henley has posted a fine critique of Kenneth Pollack's recent Times op-ed piece, a precis of the arguments from his pro-war book, in which, as Jim says, he cites "over and over again ... as evidence that Saddam cannot be deterred, instances where Saddam was deterred." As you might expect, he also has something to say about Pollack's use of evidence from defectors, which has come under renewed scrutiny of late. Recommended reading for fence-sitters and reluctant hawks.

Also of interest along these lines, Brad DeLong finds this nugget floating in "Bush at War", Bob Woodward's latest stew of leaks and innuendo:

[I]t's interesting to learn that--according to Woodward's sources at least, who include Powell or at least people who are close to and work for Powell--Wolfowitz, Perle, and company wanted to use American outrage at 9/11 as a justification for attacking Iraq before or instead of dealing with Al-Qaeda in its Afghan bases, even though they thought the chance that Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11 was less than 50 percent, and perhaps as low as 10 percent ...