I posted this as a reply on another thread:
Prevent? Wait a minute: You don't mean (GASP!) pre-emptive military action, do you? If pre-emption is wrong for Bush to wage, why was it hanky-dorey for Clinton? Or do I sense a double standard? And where was the smoking gun? Does anyone recall a smoking gun here to justify an unprovoked attack on Serbia? I sure as heck don't.
Gee, and don't the Chris Matthews of the world insist that launching war against a country which has never attacked us is wrong? Against American tradition? Why was chickenhawk Matthews so gung-ho on waging war on Serbia, then?
Clinton's war on Serbia, it turns out, DID NOT have U.N. approval. Libs -- so long as Clinton was in the White House -- insisted the U.S. didn't need the blessing of the U.N. to legitimize military action. The U.S., yes, could 'Go-It-Alone'. But now that there's a Republican in the White House, my, my, how things have changed. Now they argue Bush needs absolute, EXPLICIT U.N. approval, or else military action is illegitimate. The U.S. must not 'Go-It-Alone', you see.