Iraq Debate

I watched some of the House debate on Iraq, and I thought the quality of the opposition was really depressing. I can't find a single argument that has any force; just empty-headed vacuity parading as thoughtful questioning. Where are the analyses that make any contact with the facts of the situation?

Worst has been the sudden appearance of an argument that we should not go after Saddam because once he is convinced that we are coming, he will unleash his biological and chemical weapons to devastating effect. This says, in effect, that Saddam has already become too strong to challenge, that he has armed himself to the point where it is now too risky to attack him.

The logical extension of that argument is that the US should immediately surrender to Iraq, on the hope that Saddam will be merciful with us. Call it the Doctrine of Pre-emptive Surrender: You carefully delay taking action until your enemy is too strong for you, then you go tits up at his feet. Note that this goes a step beyond the famous French Approach to National Security, because that one depends on the unsophisticated Americans being around to give you your country back.

This kind of drivel is coming almost entirely from liberal Democrats. The party is self-destructing, as far as I can see.

Byron