Fascinating exchange of views last night on Bill O'Reilly's show. O'Reilly says the Pope is being naive and idealistic on the war. The guest says O'Reilly is being naive if he thinks violence will not beget more violence. He brings up the Israeli situation - is their situation any more secure after 40 years of giving tit for tat? O'Reilly shoots back that at least they're there, saying that if they didn't resort to violence they would be wiped off the face of the map, which is what their neighbors want. Compelling arguments on both sides.
George Weigel was on Pat Buchanan's show, still wearing the ashes he'd received. He argued that we are defending ourselves from an act of aggression if one defines aggression a bit more subtly, i.e. the nature of Saddam coupled with the gathering of weapons of mass destruction IS an act of aggression. I found it somewhat unconvincing. I never thought that the pre-emption argument was that good - I'm surprised that was the best Weigel could come up with. Saddam's weapon program is ultimately why we are going to war, but it's not the rationale - just as the feds got Al Capone on tax evasion.