Let’s go through the Global War on Terrorism (TM) checklist:
I think it was Rob who articulated this:
1) We were attacked on 9/11 and had to respond broadly
2) The world (and I’m talking most countries) believed that Saddam had dangerous weapons and was willing to use them
3) Saddam had thumbed his nose at the world bodies and prevented legitimate inspections
This alone, in my opinion and in the opinion of a large majority of our elected law makers was enough to warrant an invasion.
1. Attacked: Uh, maybe not yet, but this can, of course, be interpreted broadly, since, uh, it wasn’t Iraq that attacked us on 9/11. So let’s say: Check
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction (or shaky, unclear evidence of maybe having them?): Uh, bigger Check than for Iraq!
So I ask, shouldn’t we be attacking North Korea, and imposing “Regime Change” on this “Rogue Nation” and finding Kim Jong Il in some spider hole? In fact, doesn’t the fact that this isn’t even being talked about as an option, when their weapons programs are MUCH farther along (and real!) than Saddam’s, speak directly to the disingenuousness of the Bush Administration on this topic? Shouldn’t we be attacking North Korea? Sure, maybe their missles can’t reach us now…but let’s not wait until they can! But since the answer to the question in the title is “No” I guess the answer to “will we stop North Korea” is also “No.”
Rob: still think it’s way far out there to say that WMD’s and an Al Qaeda link were pretexts for a war with Iraq that George Bush was itching to have?