(continued from the previous post)
...He instead claimed the authority to attack nations that the President has a hunch may pose a threat in the future. Many opponents, myself included, felt that such was a dangerously broad authority to hand the Commander in Chief, and one likely to result in *less* security as nations either adopted it themselves (India and Pakistan, anyone?) or hastened to obtained their own nukes as a deterrent.
Moreover, even *if* a threat of some sort existed that might justify a military attack, that does not *compel* one to use force and pretend no other options exist. If we're *compelled* to use force to liberate the citizens of dictatorships, we're in for years of perpetual war, and some of the targets include our so-called "allies." If we're *compelled* to go to war against nations in violation of UNSC resultions, Israel must be on that list. But if not, it's just a matter of choice, and of pretext, and that position merits little respect.
The campaign's military success and the liberation of Iraqis--never claimed as more than a collateral benefit until the eve of war--simply do not retroactively justify a war of choice initiated under incredibly dubious grounds with the populace of the world--irrespective of whatever statement we've bribed or bullied their governments to take--united *against* it. (Need I add that the enmity this action incurred itself poses a security risk to one degree or another?)
Yet for all the argument here, however passionate, there was no debate. Bush made up his mind about "regime change" a year ago, and has been unservingly on that path ever since.
It may be just fine for ya'll that Bush has based his call to war on false pretenses, and that the stated rationale for the war--WMDs--appear to be absent. (Make no mistake about it--if we knew where they were, as Powell claimed to in his statement to the UN, it's a matter of egregious ineptitude if not criminal negligence not to have secured those WMD facilities right off the bat. Now we have officials suggesting that we need to rely on Iraqi informers to tell us, and that the search may take a *year*?! Please!)
I think that pretty well covers it, but I may yet have missed some points. Updates to come if I did.