Which was exactly the original point: that there were plenty of people misled by the liberal media into believing that Bush had said the threat was imminent.
> > That is why Iraq was a preventative
> > war rather than a pre-emptive war.
> You mean one unjustified and illegal? Yeah, that's
> kind of at the heart of the opposition.
No, justified and of dubious legality.
> No Dong missiles are not WMD in and of themselves.
Your point, though, was that the Iraqis had no delivery system.
> > > no chemical, biological, or nuclear
> > > programs at all,
> My mistake - that should have been "weapons" not
And Bush's justification for was was to prevent the further acquisition and effective weaponization of WMD. If we had found WMD, we would have arrived to late (and likely, they would have been used against us). Look at North Korea to see what happens when it is too late. We do not have a viable military option, despite the obvious threat to Japan, our ally, over whose territory North Korea has lobbed test missiles without warning.
> It is a very, very dangerous mistake to believe
> that you can stop Al Qaeda by attacking the
> countries in which they happen to have a known
Sounds like a good start to me. Maybe we should do something about their Saudi financiers, too.
Besides, the Taliban gave them assistance and succor. The situation is not really comparable to Egypt, say.
Powered by hypermail