Evan Bayh's stance on WMD's, Jan 2004 . . .

[mistertrickster]

Original source: The Weekly Standard

It is not surprising, then, that Bayh has aggressively made the case for the president's new strategic doctrine of preemption. The media have of course played up Democratic objections to preemption (which properly understood includes preemption as an option should other means "to forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries" not work), because that's where most Democrats have come down on the issue. Bayh's position has put him on a collision course with Democratic leaders, and he hasn't flinched yet.

On September 23, 2002, Al Gore told an audience in San Francisco that plans for dealing with Iraq should be shelved because there's "no evidence" Saddam Hussein has given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. Furthermore, said Gore, the preemption doctrine was just another effort by the administration "to please the portion of its base that occupies the far right." The very next day, on "Fox News," Bayh responded to Gore's assessment of the Iraq situation: "To wait until an attack is, quote, 'imminent'--well, our intelligence, as we found out, is not perfect, and we would run the risk of a real calamity. And that's why I think the case for moving forward now, before has the chance to disseminate , is compelling."

http://bayh.senate.gov/news/in_the_news/article/?id=4f17b6de-69a7-4a9f-bf78-b36f20bd67ee

[LiberalFighter]

1. By that reasoning I should be able to hit him before he hits me.

Even though historically he might be just a dumb ass blowhole. But you can never take the chance.

[LiberalFighter]

2. Personally, I don't believe that Bayh is that smart.

[spanone]

3. what was compelling mr bayh was that we invaded a nation that did nothing to us.