[gitmo]

The concept of a pre-emptive strike IS a departure from prior US policy. However, that was only one part of the case Bush presented for an attack on Iraq.

But we are going to have to face the nature of a war on terrorism. International terrorists attack and disappear. They are able to exist for one reason. Nations are funding, harboring and training them. Terrorists provide a method to attack an enemy without exposing one's self to war. It's analogous to hiring an assasin so that you are not directly involved in the crime. Even though they don't wear a uniform, they are still soldiers of the nations that back them.

We cannot win against terrorism if we are unwilling to go to war against the nations behind the terrorists. And in so responding, we are not pre-emptive. We are being responsive to an act of war.

[Anatolius]

I agree that if a group of terrorists attacks the U.S., and it is reasonable to believe, as you assert, that the terrorists are supported by their governments, we are not preemptive in our war against them. However, with all the evidence seeming to point out Iraq as completely disconnected with the terrorists that _did_ attack us, it doesn't seem like Iraq fits into that model of justified retaliation.