The difference between a “coalition of the willing” and U.N.-authorized force is nothing less than the credibility of international law.
Author: Chris Walton
“The emotional leitmotifs of anti-Americanism are resentment mingled with envy; those of anti-Europeanism are irritation mixed with contempt.”
Decisions.
President Bush’s case for war is different than the one that “reluctant hawks” like the liberals listed here have endorsed.
Liberals should describe how right-wing policies threaten things that most Americans value, and they should do so in a way that doesn’t borrow an ounce of rhetoric from the radical left.
Marching as to war.
Bush’s administration says time is running out for Saddam Hussein, but he hasn’t convinced most people that all the hurry is justified.
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein would be the most ambitious regime change the U.S. has tried to force by far.
Asking religious questions is the genuinely spiritual — and democratically necessary — task. Insisting on answers, however, is profoundly dangerous.
About those weapons…
Without evidence of weapons of mass destruction — especially nuclear weapons — what does Bush’s public case rest on?
Wrong ANSWER.
It is deeply counterproductive for liberal or religious groups to endorse (even implicitly) the agenda of a group like ANSWER.
Buehrens direct.
I share Buehrens’s opposition to the Bush administration’s stated policy of pre-emptive war. But finding things to admire about Saddam’s regime hurts his pragmatic argument.
