Karen, I continue to believe that Iraq poses no imminent threat, which would be the criteria for a preemptive invasion. I think I've enumerated in admittedly a brief form what I would consider to be such. I'll do it again if it helps.
First, a credible link to 9-11. That appears to no longer be an argument the Bush administration wishes to make.
Second, a credible planning level link between Al Q and Saddam. All sorts of attempts have been made to make the link but none have withstood criticisms. On this score, I think the Bush administration wishes to make the connection for rhetorical purposes--to slide the "war against terrorism" over to an invasion of Iraq. But they simply have not made a convincing case.
Third, no one now argues they have a near term nuclear capability.
Fourth, I continue to believe that Iraq is not a sufficient threat to undermine international institutions. And, as I've typed before, it's my view that the Bush administration has done far more to undermine them than the French, or the Russians or the Chinese.
So, short version of where I am at the moment.
Your last sentence: Do you think we have to wait until Saddam sends enough money to suicide bombers for them to do it, and perhaps lets loose a series of boats on our ports with perhaps dirty bombs and or other WMD...or...
For me, that problem is an Al Q problem not a Saddam problem. It seems to me, one could argue that's a Saddam threat on two basis--Saddam is equipping his troops to do so or he is prepared to equip Al Q to do so. We don't have any evidence either is taking place. I can't see a preemptive attack in those circumstances. |
