President Bush swooped into Colorado last week, raising big bucks for Republican candidates and rattling his saber against Iraq. The skeptic in me says this rush to war is a cynical attempt to divert voters from the country's dire economic condition just before a critical election.

What's the hurry? When Saddam Hussein threatened America's oil interests over a decade ago, President Bush I judiciously took the time necessary to build an international coalition and a careful military strategy against Iraq. President Bush II has resorted to bullying tactics in a headlong dash to declare war before the November election. He seems to believe that he can win on war, but he'll lose on the bungled economy. He might be wise to remember the lesson of Lyndon Johnson, reviled over the Vietnam quagmire.

No one doubts that Saddam Hussein is evil. But, is he an imminent threat to the United States? More so than North Korea's Kim Jong-Il? More so than the chaos that may well result from war in the Middle East? More so than the economic impact of skyrocketing oil prices?

Let's take a deep breath and think this one through. Our President is asking us to risk thousands of young American lives to bring down one loathsome dictator. He's talking about spending billions more deficit dollars in this effort. But, he hasn't answered our questions about why now, how to accomplish "regime change" successfully and what's next in the Middle East.

We still have a largely unfinished "war on terror". We don't know if Osama bin Laden is dead or alive. We know that al-Qaeda forces are regrouping. We have installed a very unstable regime in Afghanistan that needs years of American support to become viable. Are we really ready to take on another war, another unstable new government, another wrecked country? If we haven't met our obligations in Afghanistan, what makes us think we will make the necessary, long-term commitment to stabilize a disintegrating region?

President Bush may well be right that Saddam Hussein is an immediate threat to the United States. Clearly, his rhetoric has pushed the United Nations into a frenzy of diplomatic activity aimed at eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Despite his election fears, the President needs to let the diplomatic process run its course. The outcome will be broader international support if we do go to war against Saddam.

To rush impetuously into war for domestic political reasons could result in disastrous economic consequences at home and greater terrorism against Americans around the world. Not only will we be horrified by the nightly TV images of maimed and dying Iraqi children. Imagine the reaction in Muslim countries. Recruiting suicide bombers for terrorist acts against the United States will be easy.

With Congress up for grabs, the White House political strategy seems to be war at any cost. The hope is that voters will rally around a wartime President. But none of this can mask the impact on millions of Americans of losing their jobs, health insurance and retirement savings. None of this can rebuild the stumbling economy that is currently the greatest threat to our well being.

Colorado is at the forefront of this political battle. At a time when we have one of the worst economies in the nation and a state budget that cannot meet our basic needs, we also have hard-fought campaigns for the United States Senate, Congress, Governor and Legislature. Control of Congress could hinge on Colorado's races. That's why the President came to town. To fill his party's campaign coffers and to divert our attention from his party's losing issue, the economy.

Rather than pushing for short-term political gains at a potentially enormous cost to the country, this President Bush would serve us better by focusing on finishing what he's started, the war on terrorism, and on promoting sound policies to rebuild our economy. His political calculation right now is that he wins on war and loses on the economy. What's good for George Bush may be devastating for the country.