Replies

Considering the arguments separately, it doesn't necessarily follow that a dictator is a threat to the US just because he is a dictator. Surely the US feels this way, it does business with them all the time.

But more to your post, it doesn't seem to be a question of limited resources - it seems more to be about hitting those that have no way of harming us (else we'd surely hit China, which has openly advocated terror against the US, and Korea, which has openly threatened to do the same with their nukes), which means that the target was not a threat to the US in the first place.

We can argue until the cows come home about that, and as you can see above, it doesn't tend to get anywhere. The bottom line is, I do not ascribe to the doctrine of a preemptive strike based on what someone might do. I do support striking proven threats.

If the US has the luxury to decide who to attack and when to do it, and can talk about openly doing so for a year without receiving a preemptive attack from Iraq (since Sadaam would have nothing to lose at that point) that speaks more to a political cluster f**k than it does a true national emergency.

If the administration can show that Sadaam was involved or aided in the 9/11 attacks in any way, you won't find me, nor will you find many libertarians (save Harry Browne) who will drag their feet on calling for an immediate, decisive and devastating strike.

The article is primarily about economics, though. It is critical of Bush - yes. But as a conservative, do you find the points about economic policy to be wrong?

If the administration can show that Sadaam was involved or aided in the 9/11 attacks in anyway,

If the administration could do so without compromising sensitive sources and methods, I am confident they would do so. I have been involved on the secrecy side of such matters in a prior professional life. I well understand the need for absolute discretion when dealing with deadly serpents such as Saddam Hussein.

If you do not trust Bush, fine. I do. I do not trust Saddam Hussein. I believe I am on far more solid ground than you are. I do not expect Bush to stupidly compromise intelligence sources just to satisfy some motley squad of libertarians--who likely wouldn't be persuaded in any event.

And why must Bush prove Saddam Hussein was involved in 9-11? Would it not be enough if he is convinced Hussein is aiding and abetting in the hatching of new 9-11 slaughters?

I do not understand why any rational person would consider it immoral to strike a coiled snake until the snake has struck first.