Thank you for the response. I appreciate the fact that Flax appears to make room for the war on terrorism. I do however come away from this exchange with the feeling that Bush would be unable to thread the needle that would garner the full support of Flax, or this thread would have been unnecessary.
For this reason the premise of an imagionary debate between Washington and Bush doesn't hold much appeal with me.
Hussein was a time-bomb waiting to tick it's last tick before exploding. As a head of state, he had evidently opted to become the silent (or not so silent in some instances) financial backer of terrorists. How then could a war on terrorism be executed, without addressing this loose cannon?
Even as a man who might limit himself to domestic violence perpetrated against his own people, I withdraw from the idea that the U.S. should not have become involved.
Take care.
In other pieces, I have accepted the premise that President Bush did what was right--given the information he had--in invading Iraq. I disagree with some of the decisions made since, but not the decision to invade. So we may be closer than you think.