The reasoning that this article tries to sell is that because they don't have the ability to strike the US, we should let them be. And my point is that we thought the same thing about OBL. It seems more and more obvious that some would rather trust Saddam Hussein over our own President.
Your position is the correct one, in my opinion.
I think part of the problem we see is that people who opposed President Bush during the election do not want to admit that he could possibly be right on any issue. It would show that they were not 100% correct about his lack of brain power and leadership.
Can you doubt for a mnute that if Buchanan, Browne, or Keyes were to be pushing for a pre-emptive strike that they would not back it?
The issue really isn't about policy; the issue has become personality. There are people who refuse to think that President Bush knows what he is doing and is doing the best he can for the country. No matter what evidence is cited, it won't be enough. No matter what logic you bring forth, they will argue a counter-theory. You can hit them up the side of the head with an ICBM loaded with nukes and anthrax and labelled "hand made by Saddam Hussein for the personal destruction of the citizens of Chicago" and they will STILL argue for another course of action.
They may not be fifth column, but in their pride and bitterness they aid and abet those who ARE fifth columnists.