Question for the anti-pre-emptive policy folks...

[tugmcmartin]

To me, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to attack someone who will surely hit back, and is going to be highly more likely to be able to strike and kill more people as a result of the conflict you produce, than the worst case possibility of not attacking.

I'd agree with that. I think thats why you're not seeing us go into N Korea now. Obviously you're going to size up your opponent before you throw the proverbial first punch. Iraq was deemed someone we could push around without too much trouble. You have to pick your fights. It lends itself to a bit of a schizophrenic foriegn policy, but its the reality of foreign policy today.

And, if you will allow my hypothetical since I allowed the one you mention, we wouldn't be still worried about Osama had we put the efforts going after him, something that would not be pre-emptive since he struck first, rather than launching a needless war on Iraq.

I'd agree with this too. I've never been a fan of going into Iraq. Didn't really think there was a need and I've not really considered them a threat, no matter what the intelligence said. That being said, I did think we had the authority to go in there based on the several UN resolutions passed by the international community. I'd have really liked to have seen more multilateral support, but we didn't get it from our bigger, more important "allies". Oh well. No skin off my back. What I absolutely detest hearing today is that it appears that the current crop of democratic hopefuls would have us pull out of Iraq without finishing the job. Kerry's history on this is very clear. That is something that we, as a country, absolutely cannot afford to do. Regardless of whether we can agree on should we have or shouldn't we have gone into Iraq, i think we all need to be steadfast in insisting that we finish the job we went in there to do. I don't see Kerry or Edwards following through on this.

Oh, and it is valid to critisize Bush, even if you do feel pre-emption could be valid on a case by case basis if he made the wrong call in this case. Sure, it is a tough thing to decide and leaders can make wrong calls. But, as citizens, we deserve to have people in power we feel are more likely to make the right calls, and if making a wrong call on something this big isn't an indication that Bush is not that man, I don't know what would be.

I don't think its fair criticize Bush for making the "wrong call" if you're not also going to criticize every other person in the world that was duped by the same intelligence data and particularly those democratic senators who voted IN FAVOR of going into Iraq on that same data. You can fairly question the president's decision making, but you also have to question the decision of everyone else who had the same data and made the same decisions. Since Kerry and Edwards voted in favor of the war, aren't they too the wrong men to make the right calls? If you're going to disqualify Bush as a capable president based on that decision, then who IS the right man?

T-