Uh ... okay. What does Moyer's framing of the question have to do with the substance of Paul's reply and how is it that the question somehow negates the prong of Just War that is defending against aggression?
It wasn't Moyer's question I was criticizing. It was Paul's non sequitor reponse that was criticizing.
Paul avoids completely the dangers of WMD and terrorism in his answer to Moyers question. Moyers asks if Sadaam is planning an attack against the U.S. The SUBSTANCE of Paul's response is to only address the possibility of a Sadaam attack from his army, navy and air force leaving out the obvious -- WMD and terrorist attack.
MOYERS: Have you seen or heard anything from the CIA, the Pentagon, the State Department or the White House to suggest that Saddam Hussein is planning an attack on the United States?
PAUL: No, I see nothing imminent. He doesn't have an air force. He doesn't have a navy. He can't even shoot down
he didn't shoot one of our airplanes down in twelve years
and his army is 1/3 of what it was twelve years ago. So, you know, this fictions that he's Hitler and that he's about to take over the Middle East
I think it's a stretch.