Replies

Moreover, the doctrine of preemption against openly hostile states pursuing weapons of mass destruction is an improvement on classical deterrence. Traditionally, we deterred the use of WMDs by the threat of retaliation after we’d been attacked--and that’s too late; the point of preemption is to deter the very acquisition of WMDs in the first place.

Whether or not Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the very fact that the United States overthrew a hostile regime that repeatedly refused to come clean on its weapons has had precisely this deterrent effect. We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost.

What is really scary is that we are probably only one more RAT administration away from having the problem of WMD's and rogue states spin totally out control. IMO it is impossible to envision any RAT who could actually win their nomination within the next 10 years having the political courage and determination to launch a preemptive strike on another member of the Axis of Evil or any number of other rogue/terrorist organizations that pose a serious threat to the people of the United States if that is what is required.

The real definition of an "imminent threat" should be any WMD program that can be developed within the time frame of the next RAT administration. Bush can't say that, but it is true.

We will have to hope and pray (and vote for) that Bush wins a second term so he can continue to neutralize the most serious threats on the horizon( N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, etc. ,etc.) . I'm not totally satisfied with Bush43 (Too much spending on non-security related programs,weak on the immigration problem, etc), but overall I think he has performed well, especially with regard to national security. That issue trumps everything else.