As a follow-up to that last post, I just wanted to point out what I consider to be the irony of the criticism of the Iraqi War.
Last week, Jason criticized Bush for not following up on the perceived threat al Qaeda in light of the declassified PDB. I've heard similar criticism from the same people who will then criticise Bush for going to war in Iraq.
This is one of those “damned if you do, damned if you don't” scenarios. If Bush doesn't go after Hussein and, God forbid, he attacks the US in three years, we would hear the same criticism.
The same question was just asked of Bush - he is criticized for waiting too long for the al Qaeda threat, but not allowing the Iraqi threat to mature enough.
So I ask you - which is it? Should American proactively defend against such attacks, however distant, or should we wait until the threats are imminent (at which point it might be too late)?
Not an easy question to answer.