But Demetri, we can't go to war with the Muslim world, that is absolute madness. And this isn't like WWII, Saddam never attacked us, and it's pretty clear that his regime was not closely linked to Al-Qaida (there has been no evidence of that, and, again, if there were we would be getting spammed with that evidence by the administration) ... of course, thanks to us, now Irq is likely riddled with Al-Qaida types, so much for advancing the war on terror.
As for all the nonsense about the UN resolutions, what kind of precedent does this set? When Iran decides to give the finger to the nuclear inspectors, what are we goiong to do? Set a deadline and then attack Iran? What happens if Pakistan gets an Islamist regime? Do we attack them too, simply because they have WMDs in the form of nuclear weapons? I think that the policy of the administration here is not well-though-out, and that is because it is all about Iraq in particular, and not about any more general principles or strategy. It is about finishing what we didn't do in 91 and, more personally for GWB, avenging the assassination attempt made on Bush Sr. in Kuwait at that time. GWB has a conflict of interest when it comes to Iraq.
Nacho, your candidate is supporting the Woodward book, it is posted on the campaign website. You should read it. It paints the picture of a terrifyingly unreflective president, one who was bent on attacing Iraq well before 9/11, one who is so slef-convinced that he doesn't even consult key members of his own administration before making critical decisions like whether to go to war or not. It really is a terrifying portrait ... we have an unreflective, impulsive, self-convinced crusader as President. Having now read that book, there is no way I could possibly vote for this person again.