Reply #77: It boils down to THIS: If Bush were to attack Dean for this...

[Brotherjohn]

... he would also be doing two things:

1) Revealing that he, himself doesn't know the difference, and is therefore as "inexperienced" as Dean. Not only that, but that he has made the exact same gaffe repeatedly, on a world scale, when war and peace, lives and deaths, and international relations were on the line (not just on some debate).

2) Revealing that the war was, in fact, unjustified. If he is going to try to argue that "pre-emptive" war IS justified, and "preventive" war isn't, and clearing up for us what the two terms mean (according to the definitions as you have laid them out), then he will be making the case that his war is illegal and immoral.

To add to a scenario I painted in earlier posts, the voters are now asking:
"No WMDs? No stockpiles? No drones capable of reaching the U.S.? No Al Qaeda connection? Then why the F*** did we invade!?"

So Bush says:
"But I never said it was a 'pre-emptive' invasion. I mean, I SAID it was 'pre-emptive', but I MEANT it was 'preventive'. As we all know, 'pre-emptive' wars are legal, and 'preventive' ones aren't, which means... it was perfectly... illegal, or... er... um... Karl? (gulp!)"