>But besides the fact that
>that 98% of such attacks were baldly imperialistic (and thus not what a
>Senator would consciously want to base himself on (Oh yeah! It's just like
>when we installed Somoza! See, perfectly legitimate!)), not a single one
>of them could (b) be considered preemptive in the sense of preempting a
>threat.
And Iraq isn't either, really. Warner's right that the U.S. has attacked first many times, and Byrd was being sanctimonious and dishonest.
Doug