Reply #11: Read the National Security Strategy of the United States [View All]

[GumboYaYa]

signed by Bush.

In there he says:

"For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat, most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies and air forces preparing to attack.

We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states or terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means...."

In other words, it is the announced policy and position of the Bush administration that rogue states who possess unconventional means to attack the United States pose an imminent threat justifying preemptive attack. Every time Bush described the purported WMDs in Iraq, he was describing an imminent threat as defined by his very own policy.

But having said that, I again point out that I am merely crafting a political response that avoids the drudgery of so many arguments that liberals make. I'm not discounting your arguments; I'm merely trying to think in terms that score points with people not sophisiticated enough to follow the legitimate points you make.