Musings over Iraq in Indiana

I remember a month or so ago, I was copying evidence for my debate case at Staples. Amy and I were discussing the news from last night: Blair pledged almost unconditional support for the war on Iraq. Amy was in total disbelief, her faith in Tony "The Mack" Blair shaken to its foundations. A customer at Staples overheard us and asked what news we were talking about. When she was informed that Blair had bent to Bush's will, her response was one of contempt toward Amy's dovish tendencies: "Well, he should support us. They are our allies!"

Those who support the war on Iraq do not bother me. It's interesting to discuss the merits and costs of attacking Iraq. Those who think the rest of the world has a moral obligation follow our lead in a preemptive strike on Iraq DO bother me.

Unfortunately the majority of Evansville seems to be hawkish, as evidenced by all the major radio stations' obvious biases. However, one prominent figure has spoken against attacking Iraq: Representative Hostettler. Sure, he has had some trouble with the local media, but his recent speech in the House vote on giving Bush authorization to use force in Iraq was superb.

But if the United States is moving ahead with the President’s proposed policy of preemption, then what deterrent value is left of our nuclear triad?

Do we just throw out our long-held reliance on deterrence in exchange for a policy of preemption? I would hope not.

But if the President prefers preemption, and if he’s going to use the parameters for action against Iraq as the guide to future preemptive engagements, then we have to realize that the other members of the Axis of Evil are America’s next targets.

If that’s the case, then this vote sets an ominous precedent to which the United States and the rest of the world will be held in the future.

Full Text.

Vote for Hostettler!

Update: The House has overwhelmingly passed the bill authorizing Bush to use force in Iraq. Nice effort by Hostettler at least.