Thanks to
Atrios for printing Ken Adleman's defense of the pre-emption doctrine.
I just loved this part:
Pre-9/11, we weren't so keenly aware of dedicated fanatics bent on destroying Americans. Well, now we know. Once the world's most vile weapons get in the hands of the world's most vile people, they put thousands, perhaps millions of Americans at high risk.
Let's take this in two pieces:
Pre-9/11, we weren't so keenly aware of dedicated fanatics bent on destroying Americans.
Well, that's not quite true, is it? Some people were apparently aware, and did nothing for eight months.
Once the world's most vile weapons get in the hands of the world's most vile people, they put thousands, perhaps millions of Americans at high risk.
We're talking about 9-11, right? That's what you said in your previous sentence. So what vile weapons would those be? Airplanes? Box cutters?
Oh my! Well, then we must start attacking! Syria has airplanes, and Jordan, not to mention New Zealand! I dare say Papua New Guinea has box cutters!
9-11 can't be used to justify pre-emption. If we're attacking al Quaeda (remember? the folks responsible for 9-11?), then we don't need pre-emption. They hit us first.
It's just another example of using 9-11 to get Americans to rally around whatever the neocons wanted to do in the first place.
Oh, and is it really appropriate for a democracy to use Machivelli to justify our foreign policy? Just a thought...
