We say that another nation is behaving badly and that its internal affairs need cleaning up, so we invade it to remake it into a nation more in harmony with our own moral compass.

If this is the principle, that it's OK to attack another nation because it offends one's morality, then this principle can also be used by others to attack any other nation because it offends their morality. Such was the justification given by al Qaeda for the attacks on New York and Washington. We offend them, morally, so their behavior was justified. That is the basis of their case.

If no evidence of an immanent threat and no evidence of extant WMD are found such as is credible to those who are not already true believers, the "morally repugnant" grounds cited by al Qaeda as their justification for their attack on the US will be the bedrock upon which our case for invading Iraq will rest. These grounds, that the regime in Iraq was run by beasts and creeps, have been touted widely by Administration supporters and true believers, now that the other, more tangible and acceptable evidence continues to fail to materialize. The beastiality and creephood of Iraq's leaders has not been contested by most of those who oppose the invasion or by those who oppose Bush (not always the same people); whether that is grounds for invading a nation is the bone of contention here.

If the only "principle" involved here is that we are the biggest gorilla on the planet and ours is therefore the only opinion that matters, let's just cut the malarkey and say so right now. If we are to continue to be a nation of laws, we had better start thinking about the effects of our exceptionalist behavior upon the validity and enforcibility of laws among other individuals, groups and nations.

"Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work.

Regards--
Mary Anne