Wait just a second ...

Let's use Iran for an example again. Let's say that we have proof, real proof, that they are building the two brand-new nuclear reactors for the specific purpose of refining uranium to a weapon-grade state ...

... Well, if it is MY policy we are talking about again, then the US hits BOTH reactors with as much HE as is needed to fuse them into flat glass... and I don't care how expensive cruise missiles are! Why us, and not the Israelis or the Brits?

This is NOT pre-emptive policy. This is dealing with an established threat by a nation that has a history of non-compliance and an agenda of violence and hatred of all things American....

Objection your honor! And permission to treat Mr. Titus as a hostile witness ... "granted, proceed."

Even if I grant you that in your scenario as president you would have irrefutable proof that Iran has a nuke this is STILL unequivocally preemptive policy! Do they have the capability to strike the US, you asked of Saddam? Could their fledgling army really constitute a threat after the beating it took in the Iraq/Iran 7 Years War? Do they really constitute a threat greater then N. Korea? The fact that for 30 years they've had a hatred for all things American is irrelevant according to your dismissal of the Wolfiwitz doctrine of preemption. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your conclusion to strike but that's just it - I agree because it is preemptive. Whatever Iran claims its nuclear capabilities to be, one thing is for certain, they'll never announce they're about to strike the US. Israel maybe, but not the US. Retaliotorial you said was preferrable as a miltary strategy in thwarting Islamic terrorism. It is you among us that is a stickler for technical definitions and by definition, anything OTHER then retaliatory - meaning Iran has already struck us - IS in fact preemptive, is it not? Yes I say, yes.

Its been said that Churchill once asked a woman if she'd commit prostitution for a million dollars and she said "perhaps." He then asked her if she'd do it for a dollar, and she exclaimed "what type of woman do you take me for?" To which he replied, "we've already established that, now it's just a matter of price." And isn't that what we're talking about? A matter of degrees of preemptiveness? You would employ a preemptive military policy as well as me or Wolfiwitz or Bush ... only a matter of degrees separate us in the end... thus we agree preemption is a valid option.