  urlLink The Failure to Find Iraqi Weapons Again, the left seems to be advocating the old concept that we must absorb the first punch. Why is it that the left is willing to sacrifice Americans to the fire just to make them feel better about engaging in the horrors of war? Are the lives of our citizens so cheap? As I tire of pointing it out, I say again, 9/11 changed everything. We cannot afford to wait for the nuclear flash over a major city before we decide to address the problem. The nuclear deterrent worked with the Soviet Union, and works with China, because these nations are sane, and understand the consequence of a nuclear exchange.
The radical terrorist cares not for sanity, nor consequence. How can a rational person continue to argue that we must wait for the first strike before we exercise ourselves in defense? Those that argue that Saddam was no threat can easily see their same argument ported over to apply to al Qaeda on 9/10. They were no threat. The very idea that a bunch of thugs in caves could threaten this country was laughable. In the light of what was accomplished by thugs, how can they argue that a nation with resources such as Iraq could NEVER strike at us without warning?
The actual presence of WMD in Iraq continues to be irrelevant. The burden of proof was with Saddam, and he failed to produce evidence that he disarmed (which I don't think he did, I think the weapons are there). It isn't up to us to ferret out the proof. Someone said it - "Inspectors inspect, they aren't detectives searching for clues. " The Bush Doctrine of Pre-Emption is sane and just. These are extraordinary times.
If we still lived in 1850, when the organizational ability and military might of a nation was needed to provide a clear and present danger, then pre-emptive wars are folly. The stakes are too high today, and failure to recognize that dooms us all to eventual destruction. Moral clarity frightens the left. They live in a world of equivalence and ambivalence. They can't stand the thought of certainty, and the Bush Doctrine is grounded in simple, black and white concepts. This nation is worth protecting, our civilization holds this world together in relative peace, and we will do whatever it takes, regardless of the cost to defend it.
Those that stand in the way cannot be coddled. We will not harm those that sit out the fight, but those that refuse to help have forfeited any expectation of relevancy. This war is black and white, and stark as the struggle against Facism in the 40s. Forget the foggy concepts of the Left's favorite war, Viet Nam. Throw out the moral relativism of 'one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter'. And finally, can we get the hell over Viet Nam?
The lessons of that war have been learned, by all except for the very people who created Viet Nam in the first place - the radical left and the media. They are the ones who forced the misguided policy of a 'managed' war. They gave us political control of military targeting. The constant drumbeat of negativity drove us away from a war we were winning. We didn't loose Viet Nam, we left early. Fact is, we were crushing the enemy in every major engagement.
Withoute erosion of our willingness to do what must be done, the North had no chance. Kind of like Somalia. The incidents in Black Hawk Down were created through managed rules of engagement dictated by the politicians who were averse to risk. Those men were not given armor support because of the tender sensibilities of the 'Arab Street'. Our politicians were not willing to weather the storm of foreign opinion, and limited out troops ability to protect themselves. If we are in this war, we need to be in it completely, and the rest of the world can go to hell if they don't like it.
We don't answer to Europe. Leaders aren't always popular, but popularity is the last thing you should be concerned about as a leader. Get the job done. Do what is right. History will judge. 
