[beckett]

You are debating semantics...

There is nothing at all semantical about the question under discussion!

Here's your original post:

He thought Serbia posed a threat to the United States; that rather puts into question his knowledge of contemporary national security questions, doesn't it?

Do you claim that Hanson thought American national security depended on our intervention in Serbia or don't you?

Semantics has nothing to do with it.

[JohnGalt]

That is not my claim.

My claim is that VDH thought Serbia posed a threat to the United States. If that is what he believes than I suspect he believes Liberia poses a threat as well. Its hard to take him seriously.

[sheltonmac]

You ARE debating semantics. Hanson has referred to the nation of Serbia (among others) in columns written in support of our war in Iraq. Whether he specifically said "U.S. security" or "U.S. interests" is irrelavent. Hanson--the good little neoconservative that he is--sees no difference between the two. As far as Hanson is concerned, Hussein, like Milosevic, may have not attacked the U.S. directly, but he deserved to be attacked on "moral" grounds.