Missile defense is like wearing a belt with suspenders.

Aside from the derogatory nature of calling the Bush Administration "Bushies," the article has it right. I suppose I wouldn't call support of missile defense "theology" -- implying, as he does, strong belief in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary -- either.

I also wonder about calling Saddam Hussein "evil." Sure, he's a terrible leader who has deliberately done a lot of horrible things to the people of his own country and other countries. But I don't think that necessarily qualifies him as "evil." To me, evil is doing wrong for the sake of doing wrong. I would suspect Saddam is not oppressing his people because he thinks it's wrong. He's probably doing it in spite of the fact that it's wrong, or because he thinks it isn't really wrong.

I can't be certain how Saddam thinks about his treatment of his people. But almost 21 years of observing human nature suggests that he rationalises it somehow -- "It's wrong, but it's necessary to ensure my absolute power over Iraq," or "It's wrong, but I get a kick out of seeing them starve," or even "It's not really wrong, because opressing people is part of a ruler's job." Any of those are horribly wrong, but not precisely evil.

Wow, that's quite a tangent from one offhand remark in the article. So yeah, missile defense is a waste of money.