While Americans tend to think the world would be safer if Saddam Hussein were removed from power, they are having doubts about rushing into war against Iraq, according to polls taken in recent days.

A Newsweek poll last week found that 4 out of 5 of those asked thought America would be more secure without Hussein in power, but 60 percent said it was important to take time and try to avoid military force. Eighty-one percent are in favor of U.S. military action - if the United Nations Security Council favors it. (Only 39 percent would approve of going ahead without the United Nations.)

A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 7 out of 10 Americans think that U.N. weapons inspectors should have more time to look for arms in Iraq.

According to a Knight Ridder poll, 83 percent of Americans would support war against Iraq if a coalition joined the attack and the United Nations was in favor. Sixty-eight percent said the United States should try to contain Iraq without war.

Following is a quick look at how Americans are expressing those opinions, as seen through the pages of newspapers in American communities:

From a column by Mike Bailey, associate editor, the Peoria (Ill.) Journal Star:

... My ears do perk up, though, when I hear from the likes of Bill Bivens, a 69-year-old insurance broker and Korean War veteran from Avon in Fulton County. He opposes any attack on Iraq that does not have United Nations backing. He thinks a lot of central Illinoisans are of like mind but too shy to contact their politicians.

So he's taken his mission/petition to churches, the grocery store, town cafe, bowling alley, VFW hall. ...

"I don't have any pull with anybody" and "I haven't done anything like this before," he says. But "the American public hasn't spoken out yet on this" and "the media ... have been asking the questions wrong." Of the 80 or so opinions he's collected thus far in his town of 900, about 90 percent are with him on Iraq, he says.

"He [Bush] is putting all these troops over there. ... It's terrible," Bivens says. "Iraq's not going to hurt us. Let them [the inspectors] stay over there another year. Bring the troops back home. It's too costly to let 'em sit. ... We're going to be over there 10 or 20 years. Those poor boys ... and ladies, too."

Bivens believes that Bush has made up his mind, but that there's still hope for Congress. "It's got to be started somewhere. Avon is speaking out. Let the world hear it."

... I haven't detected all that much support for war in Iraq locally, not even in those corners where denizens lean to the right of Attila. ... But Bivens is right: It's time for Americans at the grass roots to speak up, one way or the other.

From an editorial in the Lima (Ohio) News:

... [Secretary of Defense Donald H.] Rumsfeld told reporters last week that while a smoking gun could prompt a war, the lack of a smoking gun could be an even greater reason for war, because it means that Hussein is hiding his weapons from inspectors.

It's this sort of Alice in Wonderland logic that makes us wonder what the heck the administration is doing.

There's a big difference between scouring a country for weapons and finding a few forbidden empty warheads, and dealing with a country with loaded missiles and threatening to wage war or to invade one of its neighbors.

If the administration can use diplomacy and patience to deal with North Korea, it can do the same with Iraq. Keep on inspecting, by all means, but let's have an answer of substance to "why" before saying "war."

Editorial from The News and Observer, Raleigh, N.C.:

Word of the Bush administration's announced willingness to consider exile for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is a welcome break from the steady war beat out of Washington. ...

A quiet departure for Saddam might not stifle accusations that the United States simply was seeking to solidify its control of Middle Eastern oil fields, but avoiding war would help moderate the resentment that many Arabs feel. That is one of many reasons why exile for Saddam should be enthusiastically pursued.

Editorial from the Cincinnati (Ohio) Post:

... The idea of asylum [for Hussein] is worth pushing, with two caveats. First, there has to be some mechanism in place to ensure that the world is not trading one dictator for another, that the successor government to Saddam is representative and committed to due process and human rights. And, second, aggressive arms inspections must continue until the U.N. resolution calling for elimination of weapons of mass destruction is satisfied.

Letter from Gordon Gibson of Elkhart to the Elkhart (Ind.) Truth:

On behalf of P.E.A.C.E. (Peacemaking Efforts Around the County of Elkhart), I thank The Truth for its good coverage of the rally Saturday against the rush to war with Iraq.

We counted those who set off from the Civic Plaza to walk past the county courts building. Over 290 set out, several people joined us as we walked, and some had gone home at that point to escape the bitter cold.

It speaks volumes to me that over 300 people spanning about 70 or 80 years in age turned out to make a statement. Most of the motorists who honked and waved at us were signaling their agreement with us. ...

We hope that decision-makers in Washington will take heed that they are rushing in one direction while the people of this country are going in a different direction.

The Hannibal (Mo.) Courier-Post:

The newspaper asked its readers if North Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq. Nearly 300 responded, with 68 percent saying North Korea was a bigger threat than Iraq.

One reader wrote: "The war is inevitable. I will continue to speak against it until it starts. Then I will support our troops in the field any way I can."

Letters to the Missoulian, Missoula, Mont.:

Am I hallucinating here or do King George and his cronies really think we are this stupid not to notice?

To recap:

North Korea is more of a threat than Iraq as of this writing. It not only has a confirmed nuclear weapons program and know-how from technology provided by nuclear power Pakistan, but North Korea has in the past few years repeatedly threatened South Korea, launching small-scale military attacks and sabotage raids. ...

North Korea has willingly traded and sold its technologies to anyone who would pay. They have most recently bartered its missile technologies to Pakistan in exchange for help in building up its nuclear program.

Now this is the curious point: By contrast, Iraq is considered impotent, rendered helpless by sanctions and enforcement of the no-fly zones. None of Iraq's neighbors, not even Kuwait, feels threatened by Hussein. But here is the rub, North Korea is not coveted by Bush's oil pals, so our compassionate GOP administration can't be bothered by a nation that can already nuke Alaska.

... It's not about security, my friends; it's about making Bush's and Dick Cheney's friends at Chevron and the Carlyle Group happy. These are the priorities in Bush's world. - Rebecca Holman, Missoula, Mont.

... Oil, arrogance and ambition. These are the driving forces behind the conquest of Iraq. Surely we sacrifice our souls through this unholy slaughter. - David Daniels, Ronan, Mont.

I am very distressed by the Bush administration's obsessive and unrelenting preparations for war with Iraq. The administration repeatedly tells us, and the world, that this war is necessary for our own security, and the security of Iraq's neighbors, but so far they haven't provided convincing evidence to justify the billions of dollars and thousands of lives it would surely cost.

For several months now, Bush and members of his Cabinet have said over and over that they have proof that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction. If this is true, why don't they tell the U.N. weapons inspection team what that proof is? If they really have proof, why don't they unequivocally expose Saddam's lies by exhibiting this proof? - Leonard L. Oakley, Bonner, Mont.