"Preemptive Deterrence" = Illegal War of Aggression

[Q]

- Hidden in all the rhetoric about Bush's* lies is the broader issue of America's NEW policy of 'preemptive deterrence'. Iraq was invaded using this 'unofficial' policy which says that the United States (Bush*) can attack any country HE and his small group of 'special planning' insiders feels is a threat to national security. What hasn't been discussed is that this policy of aggressive war is unConstitutional and against international law and UN charters. Also missing is a debate about Bush's* intention to bring nuclear weapons into the 'deterrence' equation.

- Sen. Byrd mentioned in one of his speeches that this policy is especially dangerous if the reasoning behind the attack is based on faulty or questionable intelligence and the evidence to justify aggressive war is kept secret from the people and their representatives.

- By any rational definition...Bush's* policy of preemptive deterrence is nothing more than 'aggressive war' of the kind we haven't seen since Hitler's Germany. No president should be allowed to attack and invade a country without evidence, debate and an official declaration of war. Instead we have the Bushies skulking in the shadows...inventing enemies and manufacturing evidence that is later hidden from the people for reasons of 'national security'.

- The bottom line is that the Bushies* attacked Iraq and plan to attack other nations guided by their own (self-serving and secretive) world view and hidden agenda. They're making these monumental decisions without the advice and consent of the legislative branch and without stating their case clearly and concisely before the American people.

- The US has become an aggressor nation that doesn't feel the need to justify its actions or show proof of a threat before attacking. Welcome to New America.

- Comments?

[Terwilliger]

1. That's exactly right

America: We Don't Need No Steenking Permission

[Q]

2. Democrats:Bushies Lied to Congress about Iraqi threat

- Sen. Conrad, Reid, Durbin and others on CSPAN2 accused the Bush* administration of lying to them about Iraq being an 'imminent' threat and the need for a preemptive strike and invasion.

On edit: they were also discussing Rummy coming before their committees and assuring them that we need to strike Saddam 'before he strikes us'.

- Tune if you get a chance...

[RichM]

3. There are MANY "hidden issues" here. SOTU is just tip of the iceberg.

NONE of the public discussion has even touched most of the insanity.

- As you point out, the doctrine of pre-emption itself remains hidden.
- Also, the plundering of the Treasury to pay Bush cronies for "reconstruction" remains unmentioned.
- The lie about al-Qaeda/Iraq ties is largely untouched.
- The complicity of the media in building uncritical war hype is untouched.
- The fact that the US has seized control of Iraq's oil is untouched.
- The premeditation established by PNAC is largely untouched.
- The joke of "building democracy in Iraq" goes unexamined.
- The dozens of "terror alerts" with the useless "color code" goes largely uncommented upon.
- Even the non-existent WMD are receiving relatively little attention compared to this one specific SOTU lie.

It's odd that with so much material to swing at, all of a sudden, this ONE very circumscribed aspect of the Iraq fiasco has been seized upon to create a growing scandal. Tip of the iceberg.