I'm sure that there are some cases, espescially in today's world climate, where pre-emptive military action against a rogue terrorist state or regime could be justified, AND, broad international support could be gained. However, The Bush Doctrine only seems to require half-truths, rhetoric and shady evidence (at best) to justify a pre-emptive strike. Only if a clear and present danger is presented (and evidence is provided to support that thesis) should a pre-emptive military strike even be considered. It is simply my judgment that Iraq was not a clear and certainly not a present danger to U.S. national security, especially when compared to other rogue terrorist states around the world. In over-extending our military presence around the world through this questionable use of pre-emptive force, Bush has actually drained our military resources to the point at which we cannot immediately respond to another terrorist attack.
