A rather astonishing editorial in the New York Times today which appears to agree with the policy of first-strike, preventive wars but then decries the move into Iraq as disastrous.
Before the Iraq fiasco, American leaders rightly viewed war as a last resort, appropriate only when the nation's vital interests were actively threatened and reasonable diplomatic efforts had been exhausted. That view always left room for pre-emptive attacks; America is under no obligation to sit and wait, if it is clear that some enemy is actually preparing to strike first. But it correctly drew the line at preventive wars against potential foes who might, or might not, be thinking about doing something dangerous. As the administration's disastrous experience in Iraq amply demonstrates, that is still the wisest course and the one that keeps America most secure in an increasingly dangerous era.
Just to throw some fat on the fire:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/12/op...12sun1.html?hp
You may have to register to read.
Cowperson