The Neocon Position: (sort of sounds like a Ludlum title doesn't it?) The idea of moral certainty has its attractive tenets, to be sure. But for me, it's one of those things that should remain up with the Platonic ideals, and mere mortals shouldn't sully the concept with their grimy little hands. Whenever a self-interested nation does something because "it's the right thing to do," start looking for the Haliburton contract. It's also dangerous because if that "certainty" is enough to bomb a sovereign nation, then it doesn't take much to create a pretense. I mean, Bush would have been better off in the case of Iraq, I'll admit, rather than stoop to creating Niger uranium deals, and promising hidden caches of WMD. But to say the neocons would have rolled out the "moral certainty" argument from the get-go is just convenient, given the paucity of any other compelling evidence at this point.

Your "Psycho" analogy is amusing and inventive, and probably not far off from what many would like to do. I only raise the spectre of North Korea as the ultimate litmus test for this brave new philosophy. Certainly the North Korean regime has done more to its citizens than Seoul could ever hope to do. The meglomania of Dear Leader cannot be questioned. Yet, they have the nukes, and they're only a quick jaunt down a six-lane highway from Seoul. The devastation to our allies, not so much us, would be considerable. Then you face the question of whether the ends justify the means. Surely, the neocons have a position on that.