After we lived through crap like this :

Q Scott, I just wanted to ask you, follow up on the Catholic bishops and a couple of actions they took. One was, they raised questions about whether we should — there was justification for preemptive action against Iraq without further evidence, I wonder if the White House has any comment on their statement.

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the United States and the international community were all speaking with one voice when it comes to the importance of disarming Saddam Hussein. This threat is real, and it must be addressed. The risk of inaction is too great. So we are going to continue work with the United Nations and work with our friends and allies to disarm Saddam Hussein. It’s about protecting not only America, but the region and the world from the risks that he poses.

Is anyone really surprised to see this?

North Korea on Tuesday refused to rule out a pre-emptive attack, even amid signs it may be willing to return to the nuclear bargaining table.
ADVERTISEMENT

The North poured out anti-American rhetoric ? a tactic it has used in the past before entering negotiations ? by claiming that Washington’s “hostile policies” led it to develop nuclear weapons as a deterrent and warning against any attack to dislodge its leadership.

“The United States should be aware that the choice of a pre-emptive attack is not only theirs,” the North’s official news agency quoted the state-run newspaper Minju Joson as saying. “To stand against force with force is our unswerving method of response.”

It’s too late to start complaining now, Mr. President. You’re the one who set the precedent for unprovoked attacks on other countries. As a country that prides itself for its (mostly undeserved) reputation as the world’s moral leader, the United States gave the okay for other countries to attack their enemies without evidence of an impending threat. You can’t just close Pandora’s box just because you didn’t like what was in it.