WMD were not the reason for war.

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

Over and over, this adminstration claimed that this war was the beginning of a new American foreign policy (the Bush policy): pre-emptive war. WMD are not the basis for this policy but a mitigating factor that would prompt the institution of this policy. The announcement of the policy came first, the WMD and the immediate danger Iraq posed came second (well, at least the administration posed it this way). Doesn't anyone remember the "just-war theory" debates (a debate the adminstration could never, NEVER, win--not from an Augustinian, an Thomistic, or even a Kantian perspective).

This is a failed policy (on its first attempt). This is why the weapons programs spin is complete bullshit. It's not only because the administration wants to change the narrative from real, live WMD to simply a POTENTIAL for WMD. It's bullshit because POTENTIAL does not make the case even for the adminstration's new foreign policy. I have heard very little about pre-emptive war since the debate about pre-emptive war. It renders the WMD vs. WMD programs very important. The media portray a the existence of a WMD program as if it were a positive thing for the adminstration (see, silly little centifuge). It should not be a positive thing. The revelation of a program should indict them even more. The more we see the CAPABILITY (years down the road) the more preemption looks completely misguided. A WMD program should serve as a reminder that the war was unnecessary (calling for potential military strikes--oh, I don't know, maybe like the ones in 1998).

Liberating the Iraqi people is not part of a pre-emptive war policy. This may have been a stated reason for the war, but it contradicts this administration's core belief in preemptive war. Liberation of a people is, in fact, a violation of a foreign policy based on preemptive war.

I think the Dem candidates really need to corner Bush on preemption as foreign policy. I really don't see any way around it for him. No weapons, or even a means with which to deliver them, fails the premption test. No nukes fails the test. Liberating a people from a despot fails the test. Finding a weapons program fails the test. I can even try to be a media whore, but if the question of preemption is primary, how can I spin it? The adminstration fought, FOUGHT, for this new policy. You can spin WMD all day (which the adminstration and their whores have done), make it morph into a different narrative, talk about liberating the citizens of Iraq. But they fail and even contradict repeatedly their own preemptive strategy.

O.K., enough. I will preemptively cut my rant short.

[blm]

1. Good rant...

why cut it short? If you can write, there are less talented folks (like me) who love to read. ;))))))))

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

2. This whole Tenet/CIA failure only proves further

how dangerous a policy preemption is. The lack of WMD and the documentation of a weapons program will only continue to highlight this. Good God, we have seen a 200-year-old American foreign policy change over night.

Repubs love citing the fact that Clinton launched a strike in 1998 based on the intelligence Bush used to make the argument for war. Three immediate problems arise here (there are more):
1)The intelligence is five years old (yes, I'm stating the obvious here).
2) Clinton ordered strikes, not a war. Military strikes work well when combating weapons programs (this is why Clinton was very close to striking North Korea). You can take out a country's means for making waepons before the weapons are produced. A preemptive war is totally unnecessary for this. This is why arguments for the war based on Iraq's developing a weapons program reveals this preemptive sham. Hopefully, someone will call them on this.
3) If Clinton's strike was a "wag-the-dog" moment, which most repubs said it was, then was the intelligence he was using bogus (or exagerrated), or was the repub right just being a bunch of dicks (gee, should we take a poll?)?

Did I mention that Clinton didn't order a war and worked through the UN?