So London mayor Ken Livingstone, running for re-election on June 10, wants to oust the Saudi royal family. He longs for the day when he can "see them swing from lamp-posts."

This, mind you, is the same man who derides George Bush for the war in Iraq. Can you say "disingenuous," Ken? Or how about, "hypocritical?"

How does he propose we "string up the Saudi royals?" Would that not take a pre-emptive strike against Saudi Arabia? Would it have the backing of the United Nations? Would it inflame the "Arab Street" and the terrorists, and thusly cause even more mayhem in the Middle East?

For someone who opposes Bush and the Iraq War so much that he'd rather run on a platform of "I Said No on Iraq!" than anything he'd actually do or has done for the city of London, Livingstone seems to forget whatever lessons we were supposed to have learned for invading Iraq. How is invading Saudi Arabia any better a foreign policy than the invasion of Iraq? And who will replace the House of Saud once they've been ousted?

The Saudi royal family may not be the best of friends, and wouldn't it be wonderful indeed to see them ousted under a planned outcome - but they're better than some of the alternatives that we've seen interrupting the transition to Iraqi self-government.

How do we know what "Red Ken" would do to bring about the overthrow of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East? We don't exactly know, because he ain't exactly explained. Ken, like most politicians, loves his soundbites. He must know it would take war. He'd have to be dumber than he looks to pretend otherwise.

Ken Livingstone needs to explain more about what he wants to do about Saudi Arabia before issuing yet another tired anti-war tirade.