Jeff Frantz's shortsightedness ("Invasion plans lack support, don't hold water," Sept. 4 column) in the face of the grave threat posed by Saddam Hussein is unsettling at best. At worst, his "ignore-the-problem-and-maybe-it-will-go-away" mentality is downright dangerous.

Note to Jeff and other ostriches: We tried that policy once before, and look where it got us. More than 3,000 dead Americans in our own backyard. Three hideous acts of terrorism against U.S. citizens and sailors in the '90s, and how did we respond? By firing a few $1 million missiles at $10 tents in the desert. Now, however, we know exactly who is targeting America.

We know exactly who has used weapons of mass destruction in the past. We know exactly whose intelligence officers have met with members of al-Qaida. That's right: Saddam Hussein's. CNN stated: "U.N. weapons experts have said Iraq may have stockpiled more than 600 metric tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, VX and sarin." In case Frantz wasn't aware, 600 metric tons of VX gas has the capability to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Now just imagine if Saddam decided to furnish those weapons to al-Qaida or any other Islamic terrorist group. American casualties to make 9/11 pale in comparison would undoubtedly result. So what would justify the removal of Saddam (it's him we're after, not Iraq)? A chemical or bioweapons attack at the Super Bowl? A leveled U.S. or Israeli city? Or should we just forget the whole thing, for fear of future terrorist attacks? I agree with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, when he says "leadership in the right direction finds followers and supporters." The right direction is taking out Saddam, and the right time is now.