preemptive war...preventive war...
Why do otherwise educated, experienced officials, journalists and academics misuse these terms, frequently using the term preemptive to describe the preventive? Honest mistake? Willful dissembling? Invincible ignorance? Preventive exculpation? Someone should tell them many out here know the difference and find the smell repulsive.

"I never thought of it like that." Of course not. When you come from the Michael Cohen school of foreign policy, thinking stops at inherently good.

Do they really believe this stuff?

Feinstein never thought of it like that because of American Exceptionalism. The US is special, don't you know. Many of us probably know someone who seems to believe that the normal rules of decorum don't apply to her/him. The 'exceptional' Americans who do the national thinking have the same problem on a grand scale, which includes using the military (now being expanded) as the primary force of foreign policy.

Yeah, I'm tired of having wars for oil. Let's have some wars for humanitarian reasons instead. And, when we get tired of that, we can go back to having wars for oil.

And, slightly off-topic, has anyone done a rewrite of the Monty Python "Spam" sketch with "Spam" replaced by "war"? Because that's how I'm going to feel next November:

Wife: Have you got anything without war?

Waitress:Well, there's war egg sausage and war, that's not got much war in it.

Wife: I don't want ANY war!

Man: Why can't she have egg bacon war and sausage?

Wife: THAT'S got war in it!

Man: Hasn't got as much war in it as war egg sausage and war, has it?

I don't believe in doctrines, there are no doctrines. They just do the maximum of whatever they think they can get away with. Just because they can, or they think they can.

There's only one way to stop it - a whole bunch of them needs to be tried and hanged. Or at a minimum disgraced and run out of town like Nixon.

Is it Fein-stein (as in "mine") or Fein-stein (as in "teen")?
If the Bush doctrine of "preemtive war doesn't go far enough," how far would Fein-stein/steen go?
Isn't foreign policy fun?

It's just the same old GREED AND STUPIDITY, nothing new. The neighbors have something (gold, oil, land ,cheap labor{slaves}, soon--food,) someone else wants and so moves to take it instead of trade for it. GREED AND STUPIDITY dance arm in arm so even if YOU are 'intellegent and clever', if YOU GET GREEDY, YOU GET STUPID too. It's a package deal 2-4-1.

You see, your problem here is in thinking of "international law" meaning something like "the set of laws mutually agreed upon by sovereign states", rather than its actual meaning, "the compliance of other nations with US demands".

There are only two serious anti-war candidates: Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Clinton and Obama are both AIPAC puppets, and there isn't another Republican worthy of the name.

from the 2004 Foreign Affairs piece:
"In the name of protecting state sovereignty, international law traditionally prohibited states from intervening in one another's affairs, with military force or otherwise. But members of the human rights and humanitarian protection communities came to realize that, in light of the humanitarian catastrophes of the 1990s, from famine to genocide to ethnic cleansing, those principles will not do."

Or, we're not doing this for power and profit--the bleeding heart liberals are demanding it!

This piece was co-written by Anne-Marie Slaughter, the Woodrow Wilson School dean who has written a new book: The Idea That Is America, that we have to 'get back' to the fine values that built America. It was at the Wilson School, by the way, that HRC gave her "all options on the table in Iran" speech. What a small world.

Mike, you forgot.. water without staggering amounts of mercury and other heavy metals

I was going to mention water too and got sidetracked. Rumsfeld, in referring to Iraq's natural resources, never mentioned oil without mentioning water. What did he have in mind? Who knows. The Tigris and Euphrates are two huge rivers that originate in Turkey and issue at the Persian Gulf. Turkey is building dams, the Euphrates goes through Syria--many issues.

Will Marshall said it best:

The challenge for you don't-question-my-patriotism clowns, then, is neither to blindly support nor reflexively oppose preemption. It is to articulate your own case for preemption, one that is grounded in your own tradition of bleeding-hearted dependency promotion and that allays any lingering public doubts about your willingness to confront those who threaten our country, our friends, and your right to hate America as much as I love it.

http://www.democracyarsenal.org/2007/08/getting-my-own-.html

abb1 states There's only one way to stop it - a whole bunch of them needs to be tried and hanged.

I disagree, for two reasons.

1) Instead of a hanging, I would prefer a firing squad, with all the trimmings - Marines in dress uniforms to do the actual shooting, a fly-over by a fighter jet aerobatic team, the Army Band performing the Doors' song "The Unknown Soldier", Peter Paul & Mary with "Blowin' in the Wind", and as a finale Mr. Zimmerman himself in a duet with Cate Blanchett, singing "Masters of War."

2)But seriously, folks, instead of an execution, I would prefer life in prison for those convicted of treason, mass murder, etc. As an idealistic youth, I thought that the government should not kill people unless it's necessary. Though no longer young, and somewhat less optimistic (in the Gramscian sense of "pessimism of the intellect", though I attempt to practice the "optimism of the will" that Gramsci also advocates) I find myself thinking that I was right the first time.

Jon:

Did you see that Feinstein has a piece on HuffPo today?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-feinstein/hillary-clinton-more-tha_b_74840.html

I think (hope) WE ARE ALL in agreement on one point, THEY NEED TO BE TRIED. I, for one, am willing to accept the JURY'S findings but would DEMAND the SAME JURY to determine punishment.