The debate continues. Megan sees complexity:
Libertarians should be inherently more suspicious of the American government’s ability to make things better than other groupsbut by the same token, it seems to me that they should be inherently more suspicious of repulsive states such as the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Isn’t the principle of non-aggression supposed to be at the core of libertarianism? Or has that, too, now ceased to be trendy?
This strikes close to home:
The idea that Hussein's regime plausibly posed a threat to this country was fantastical. The fact that a lot of people shared this fantasy did not make it any more reasonable.
Guilty as charged. I believed Colin Powell. More thoughts here.