Do we have a legal right to attack Iraq? Yes. The initial UN resolution promised serious consequences for material breach of the disarmament. Serious consequences is diplomat-speak for an attack; nothing less. Does Iraq actually have the things we say they do? Yes, I have no doubt. I've never doubted that; I've just wondered if that's enough cause to attack.
Do we have a moral right to attack Iraq? It's nearly impossible to have a moral right to attack without a moral obligation to attack.
Do we have a moral obligation to attack Iraq? I'm starting to wonder if we do. I think President Bartlet started to convince me that a doctrine of preemptive strike isn't inherently wrong. And now Iraq is in a position to continue its weapons enhancement, in the face of a legal obligation to stop. If they can't hit Israel with a nuke or hit America with anything, but those will both be wrong in three years, and if there is no reason to believe that Sadaam will follow any more ultimatums, which can in the end only be enforced by one thing or the threat of that one thing, and if we also have no reason to believe that Sadaam won't attack us as soon as he can (we've certainly provoked him enough already to last years), then is it possible we should attack? Doesn't the US military have an obligation to protect us and our way of life, and isn't it possible that this is the best way to do so?
What am I missing that was so clear a day or two ago?