I think I spelled that right. I finaly got to watch the Colbert Report, and he had Alan Dershowitz as his guest. Now, I'm currently restraining myself from saying horribly partisan things about him, but he's a liberal. He tried to come across as reasonable on the Report, but he's one of the biggest lefty law professors there are. Anyway, I think that's who he was...the bio lines up, but I could be mistaken.
Anyway, the point is that I was somewhat impressed. He conceded the need for some preemption of terror, and thats good. However, he tried to say that the war in Iraq was a bad move cause Iran was a bigger threat. He gave the example that Iran is headed by a holocaust-denying son-of-a-b who really wants a neuclear bomb. Well, three things. First, that guy wasn't the head of Iran three years ago. Second, maybe Iran now looks worse than Iraq...because the invasion idea worked! Third, when we invaded Iraq, we also listed Iran and North Korea, and probably Syria as well, as other potential dangers. The reasons for not invading those countries, however, were that while they were generaly uncooperative, they had not been ignoring UN security council declarations for 12 years already. It was safe to say that diplomacy still had a minescule chance of working with those other countries, while Iraq was just going to keep ignoring us. So we started using louder words.
Also, if anyone wants to argue that Dershowitz wouldn't have been screaming if we decided to invade Iran three years ago, while the EU still thought it could convince them to give up their nukes with diplomacy, well, you're entitled to your opinion, you're just wrong.
But if you want to defend the idea, then, please, go ahead.