I have no idea which links I followed from where to get here, but:
Back then, I was willing to give the administration the benefit of the doubt. All the heavy rhetoric seemed to be part of an overall strategy to intimidate Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction. The threat of force was necessary to convince Hussein to allow the weapons inspectors back into Iraq, I thought.
I’m starting to think this guy’s an idiot…
It turned out the tough talk wasn’t just a ploy, it was the real policy. The administration had decided to invade Iraq and depose Hussein no matter what he did.
Right. Because making threats and talking the talk with no followthrough does nothing to one’s credibility. Just ask Jimmy Carter.
I’ll take the president and the vice president at their word this time around. They mean what they say. They are ready to use force to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, to use force preventively. Damn the consequences.
Hmmm. Experience has taught him to take the Bush administration at its word. Though it apparently hasn’t taught him to take our enemies at their word, even though they’ve followed through on it as often as possible. Oh, wait - this guy probably thinks the Bush administration is his enemy. Say what you will about Islamofascist crazies, but at least they hate Bush!
It’s important to understand the difference between a preventive attack and a pre-emptive attack - although the Bush administration seems to want to confuse the two. A pre-emptive attack, recognized in international law, is when someone has his hand on a gun and is about to fire at you, and you beat him to the draw, firing first. That’s understandable and justifiable. A preventive attack is when there’s no imminent danger, but you want to keep the threat from even developing. That’s what the Bush administration did in Iraq. That’s what it is threatening to do with Iran now.
Another fucking sea-lawyer. Throw him overboard, already.
Of course, the world will be a more dangerous place if Iran does develop nuclear weapons. This is a very serious, worrisome problem. But it’s a complex situation, much more complicated than Iraq was with the brutal dictatorship of Hussein.
Right. It’s such a… nuanced… situation.
The heavy-handed Bush approach to Iraq has actually made security in the Persian Gulf worse, not better - and Iran more likely to want nuclear weapons, not less. And yet the Bush administration is defiantly reaffirming its policy. At the very least, it would be better left unsaid.
Right, because deterrence worked so poorly for us in the cold war.
I was right - an idiot.