Victor Davis Hanson at NRO has a couple of thoughts on Iraq.

Since September 11 there has no longer been a margin of safety — or error — allowing us a measure of absolute certainty before action. Long gone is the notion that American soil is inviolable or that enemies will not butcher thousands of civilians unexpectedly and in time of peace.

Mr. Hanson seems to be saying that what has changed concerning Iraq is that after 9/11 we are more aware of our insecurity. Iraq hasn't done anything provocative. It's just that we have become more sensitive. Not only is the White House willing to go to war unilaterally, but the reason for the war is only our change of heart. Not anything that Saddam is doing differently. By this argument we simply prove ourselves to be the bullies that we are accused of being.

So the danger is not preemption per se, but bellicosity for no good reason. We must get away from stereotyped generalizations and look at specifics. Being inactive in the face of unprovoked attacks on Americans — the Iranian embassy takeover and the Marine barracks bombing are good examples — can establish precedents just as pernicious. In that regard, President Carter's restraint in 1980, in combination with a failed raid, was a far more dangerous act than President Reagan's bombing of Libya — and makes his present moral objections to preempting Saddam as disturbing as they are hypocritical.

This says that we should go to war now because previous administrations were provoked and should have gone to war then. Going to war now is not going to rewrite history (but something tells me someone is going to try).

And some bloggers seem to think Hanson is making sense. What are they smokin'?

If the past behaviors of the Bush regime are predictors, Bush and company are going to go to war anyway regardless of how bad an idea it is. Remember tax cuts for the rich people?