Nothing But Politics

[Amaunet]

I am not sure why people are debating whether Bush lied or not regarding our pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The commentariat has debated ad nauseum exactly what “proof” George Bush and Tony Blair have of Iraq's misdeeds, but this line of questioning misses the point: for a preemptive strike, they need not proof but merely suspicion.

The true horror of this administration’s pre-emptive policy is that it is based on SUSPICION. Suspicion is the act or an instance of suspecting something wrong without proof or on slight evidence No proof is required. In the wake of Sept. 11, we are told, a preemptive strike against Iraq (or any other unfriendly government or suspected terrorist state) is our absolute right as an aggrieved nation. Proof of hostile actions or evil intentions directed against the US is not necessary, just a reasonable suspicion that the bad actor in Baghdad wishes us ill and might, at some future date, act out his aggressive fantasies

Even more disturbing, however, the doctrine of preemption threatens not only to extend American hyperpower across the globe without limits, but to legitimize any nation's attack on any other based not on existing but on perceived threat. It vastly expands the scope of legitimate state-to-state combat. Such a change could redound against the United States should other beleaguered nations facing the specter of weapons of mass destruction-India, once again, could be a case in point-apply the administration's preemptive framework and let loose the dogs of war. The commentariat has debated ad nauseum exactly what “proof” George Bush and Tony Blair have of Iraq's misdeeds, but this line of questioning misses the point: for a preemptive strike, they need not proof but merely suspicion.
http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/issues/2002/oct/editorial1.html


So what we have is on Sept. 14, 2002, President Bush signed a secret document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, which stated, in part: "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including potentially nuclear weapons—to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies."

http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2003/030224nukefirst.html

We can attack any country with nuclear weapons which could easily lead to genocide merely on suspicion that they might be a threat someday.

If, however, the ongoing debate brings to light the extent of Bush’s lying and in doing so convinces the voting public that he is unfit for the Presidency, argue on, but the real culprit is suspicion. Am