OK, here is your post :
Isn't it curious that many of the same folks who, a year ago, lobbied against the invasion of Iraq on grounds that preemptive, anticipatory military action was ill-advised, immoral, or premature...are now, by criticizing the Administration for not acting sooner (indeed, the silliest of the conspiracy theories tend to hold that solid knowledge of impending attacks was in the Administration's hands, but ignored)...essentially arguing on behalf of preemptive military action?
How are the people who are faulting Ashcroft et al for not acting prior to 9/11/01, favoring preemptive military action? Or, in your worldview, does "action" always mean "military action"? (Like in, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail"!) |
