Hawk, you've made a better defense of the Bush policy than they seem to be doing.
The problem with that defense, however, is that they argued that only part of the time. Much of the rest of the time they argued that the threat was imminent, couldn't wait until next fall, stop the inspections, etc. Blair has apparently been caught with the 45 minutes to launch argument.
So, as far as I'm concerned, it's not the presence of the wmds that's the issue. I assume they will eventually find something or find that the stockpiles present in 98 were destroyed. It's the "restarting" arguments that have been called into question by the absence of the wmds. Thus, the argument that says the Bush folk had to invade immediately is now in question.
As for your reference to "liberals", some are supporting the Bush folk some are opposed. It's all over the lot. The only category that works right now is that of Bush critics or, even better, critics of the wmd arguments made by the Bush administration. I belong in both of these latter two categories.
As for all the talk of violations of UNSC resolutions, that's a justification for invading Israel. Why doesn't seem likely at the moment. |
