Pre-emption

George Bush and John Kerry and George Bush are prety much running neck and neck, and amazingly, Bush is getting relatively high marks from the populace for how he has handled the war on terror.  Only in the US could we see this.  I think people in the US actually believe that bin Laden and his ilk would actually cower at the though of George Bush at the helm in Washington. 

Actually, bin Laden would hope that Bush wins.  Just look what Bush has done for terrorism.  He has created a whole new hotbed for terrorists as a result of the war and occupation in Iraq.  Bin Laden has so much more to work with now.  The question now seems to be, what is Kerry's stance.  Some in the US seem to be saying that though he criticizes Bush on the war on terror, he must be prepared to use pre-emptive force if necessary.  Excuse me!!  What part of "illegal" do you not understand.  "Pre-emptive" and necessary are contradictory terms in this context.  If the US is being attacked, which would be the only reason for it to prepare  an immediate counterattack, the counterattack would not by definition be pre-emptive.  Pre-emption is illegal under international law, to protect countries from unprovoked invasion.  Pre-meption is by definition unprovoked, and therefore unnecessary.