At the risk of engendering the same sort of mindless kneejerk partisan commentary that my last, more partisan, iteration of this blog seemed to inspire, I give you this:

Bush Compares War on Terror to World Wars
"We're not yet safe," Bush said. "Terrorists in foreign lands still hope to attack our country. They still hope to kill our citizens. The lesson of Sept. 11, 2001, is that we must confront threats before they fully materialize."

We'll leave aside for a moment that Chimpy managed to mention 9/11 five times in a 30 minute speech (that's once every six minutes, math fans), but let's just ask ourselves a question: how granular is this idea of preemptive strikes? Does it mean that I'm a potential target because I have occasionally said negative things about the goverment? If so, am I before or after, say, North Korea or Saudi Arabia or Pakistan on the master list (kept in Unka Dick's upper left-hand desk drawer) of potential threats to the 'Murkin way of life? Should I consider ramping up my nuclear weaponry program as a deterrent, or, heaven forbid, a component of my own preemptive strike?

Wingnuts, I encourage you to explain this logic to me. While you're at it, please see if you can explain to me (without saying something like "if you don't know, I can't explain it to you") why we're in Iraq?

Thanks.