Confused

Yahoo reports that:

"This is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown," Bush said of the North Korean situation.

By contrast, when asked whether the high cost of war would cripple the U.S. economy, Bush tersely replied: "An attack from Saddam Hussein or a surrogate of Saddam Hussein would cripple our economy." (Full Text)

While Bush is a horrible public servant for being more evasive in his answering than even a policy debater, I'm not clear on what RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent means by:

It marked the first time Bush has used potential damage to the U.S. economy as justification for military action.

Did Bush really try to justify an attack on Iraq with that comment? I don't think he intended to anyhow. But if Bush did, or tries to justify war with Iraq through economic means that would be one of the most horrible moves he could make. Talk about a devastating PR move. "The US is justified in attacking Iraq because a war will help its economy." I'm sure France will be thrilled.

It's not too late Mr. Bush. Take a week at the ranch, reassess the US's priorities. Peace or Domination? Attacking Iraq or defusing North Korea?