Reply #6: I have a few

[gottaB]

Wiesel's support for the invasion: Intervention Only Option in Iraq.

The White House did attempt to use Wiesel's statements and positions for its own propaganda, in order to give a moral justification for its political stances, sometimes to comic effect (e.g., Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer, February 28, 2003).

After the failure to find weapons of mass destruction, did Wiesel's view on intervention change? This article from a conservative publication suggests that it did: Wiesel's Words of Wisdom. I would take that with a grain of salt. Here's a direct response to the question from another source:

"We have the right to intervene because every human being is worthy of our solidarity," he said.

In his first visit to Northwestern University in 25 years -- though many students attended a Chicago speech by Wiesel last October -- the author and activist addressed the dangers of fanaticism.

Saddam Hussein, he said, was a fanatic who needed to be removed from power.

"How could we have allowed him to remain?" he asked. "The fact is, we had to go in. Would I have said the same thing if I knew there were no weapons of mass destruction? I don't know."

Wiesel warns fanaticism increasing

In my opinion, Doctor, the challenge for thinking people who would heed Professor Wiesel's call is not to decide who is worthy of protection and who is not, nor is it merely to identify those situations that we have a moral obligation to attend to and rectify. Rather the challenge is to decide upon specific courses of action and to carry them through, and, knowing that the consequences of the choices we make may be far-reaching, to allow for aporias, and cultivate within ourselves and our institutions a capacity to calibrate our actions as circumstances demand. At the level of international affairs, the possibilities for responsiveness, empathy and creativity which give meaning to our humanity have only just begun to be tapped.