IS PRE-EMPTION DEAD?

Donald Sensing takes issue with me. I take his points as well. Maybe I should clarify: what I meant is not that pre-emption isn’t necessary. I think it is, in a post 9/11 world. And I also don’t buy the argument that you have to have proof of actual ready-to-go weapons in order to take action. As Donald points out, all you really need is componentry. And the preliminary Kay report convinced me – and still convinces me – that the war was worthwhile, that Saddam had been lying, that he couldn’t be trusted, that we had no viable future alternative to war (sanctions were becoming grotesquely immoral and porous), and that the future threat was absolutely real. But – and it’s a big but – we made the case on the existence of actual, operational WMDs and stockpiles of the same. We did so publicly, openly, clearly to as big a global audience as we could find. We said: trust us. We know. But we didn’t. I cannot see how a single ally will support us in future in a similar circumstance because of that. Certainly, Britain won’t be able to. And I think a large swathe of American public opinion will be more skeptical than ever. It’s not exactly a case of crying wolf. The wolf was there all right. It’s a function of exaggerating a threat. I believe it was an honest mistake. I was prepared to give the inspection teams months and months to find something. But so far … no actual weaponry. I hope we still find some. Or that we can get some plausible explanation for why we were so wrong. But we’re deluding ourselves if we think it doesn’t matter, won’t count in the future and hasn’t done us a great deal of damage in the court of world opinion. And if the president cannot take responsibility for that, who should?

THE EDWARDS RECORD: The scrutiny is beginning. Check out Overlawyered.com for Wally Olson’s take on Edwards’ suing obstetricians for allegedly giving kids cerebral palsy. I don’t see how it should affect one’s views about Edwards as a potential president, but worth a look.