Well, first former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, now his buddy, Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), who on 19th September 2002 said:

As for the Democratic leadership seeing Republicans as the only enemy: this is a cheap shot which is patently untrue. Democrats are no less committed to defeating Al Qaeda than Republicans. Democrats are no less concerned about Iran or North Korea.

Not if that might benefit the only enemies recognized by the Democratic leadership: Republicans. Really the war seems to be completely irrelevant to most of the minority leadership, except as a way to score partisan points domestically.

Peter: “the unprecedented step of using American armed forces in a pre-emptive conflict… the Army has never been used to start a war when none existed.”

Complete and utter nonsense. (…unless you mean, trivially, in that the Navy or Air Force usually strikes the first blow…)

It wasn’t until Wilson that any U.S. President would have even dreamed that only being attacked could justify fighting a war — and Wilson took us into a war that only peripherally affected us. Look up the Spanish-American War, any of a dozen invasions of sovereign native american nations (and yes, they really were sovereign nations), the Mexican-American War — all wars of territorial conquest. Then check out the invasion of Canada in 1812. Or any of dozens and dozens of smaller military actions over the years.

Heck, our very first foreign war was a “preemptive” strike against Tripoli (modern-day Libya) because it was a safe haven for the terrorists of the day (i.e. pirates) — a war we barely remember, except in the lyrics of the Marine Corps Hymn. Though Bush gained some appearance of strength and his opponents gained an opportunity to express shock and dismay, the notion that there was something unprecedented or novel about the justification of this war is simply bunk, however politically convenient.

Also, I think there is a clear distinction between Iraq and North Korea. First, say what you will about Hussein, but he was a rational man who was crazy like a fox. He knew any attack would result in the obliteration of Iraq. Kim Jong Il is a certifiable nut job, and who knows what he would do. Also, nukes are all that Kim Jong Il has — it’s his only card — and Iraq has oil revenue.

If Hussein was close to developing nuclear weapons, then perhaps you could make a case for a pre-emptive attack. However, if possessing nuclear weapons is something that Saddam wanted but was years away from — and, as we found out, his nuclear program was moribund, if it existed at all — then I don’t think you can make a case to go to war for something which was so speculative and so far into the future.

Two related thoughts: Had the Democrats in Congress not voted for the war, there would be howling on the right (“obstructionist Democrats”). The tradition is for Congress to follow the President’s lead in declaring war — there has to be a very high bar for voting against a Presidential call for a declaration of war. The Democrats almost unanimously followed in this tradition and supported the administration, and now some are shifting the blame to them. From this perspective, it’s a lose-lose situation for the Dems.

Secondly, I am old enough to remember when China (then called Red China) developed its first atomic bomb. There was consierable debate at the time concerning whether we should have a pre-emptive strike against China. You had many of the same ingredients as Iraq: China had an aggressive foreign policy, a totalitarian state, and was an avowed enemy of the US. While our relations which China have never been problem-free, LBJ’s decision not to attack China has ultimately led to a situation where the Chinese nukes were never used, and we have a much less confrontational relationship with China. Sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing –