America's Next Top National Security Advisor

Back in the fall of 2002, I saw something written by Lee Feinstein about how we had to hold Iraq accountable for its terrifying WMD. Why? Because to do otherwise would irrevocably weaken the UN. Oh noes!!!

I recognized Feinstein from the Clinton administration, and sent him email listing dozens and dozens of serious violations of UN resolutions by the US and our allies. I asked him if he were aware of this, and how he thought people in other countries would perceive his current fervor for the sanctity of UN edicts.

Feinstein seemed genuinely taken aback. He said something like, "I never thought of it like that."

I assume that, since then, he's continued not thinking of it like that. Because he's probably going to be National Security Advisor in the Hillary Clinton administration:

"A lot of Obama's advisers thought this was a stupid war in 2002, and a lot of Hillary's advisers thought it was a good idea in 2002," said one Democrat with a national security résumé. "That's the original sin which causes people to make some choices." "The campaign's advisers reflect a broad spectrum of opinion within the Democratic Party," countered Clinton national security guru Lee Feinstein... Another Foreign Affairs essay, co-written in 2004 by Feinstein, is also drawing scrutiny. It argues Bush's controversial doctrine of "preemptive" war - attacking an enemy before it attacks the U.S. - "does not go far enough." Feinstein, a former Defense and State department official, supported ousting Saddam in 2003 and believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Since then he has championed the concept of a "duty to prevent," which justifies preemptive strikes. He said the U.S. should try to build coalitions, but that it can attack without allies' support.

It's safe to say that all this massive violating of international law will be done because it is crucial that we strengthen international law.

Posted at November 29, 2007 01:42 PM

