Proof Under Unreasonable Circumstances

Cheney shifts attack on war critics
By Adam Entous Mon Nov 21

"Cheney, who issued dire warnings before the 2003 invasion about the threat posed by Iraqi weapons programs and links to al Qaeda, said the administration presented the best available intelligence about Iraq's weapons programs. He said it had not been Washington's responsibility to prove Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before invading-- but Saddam's to show that he did not have them."

Again, the Administration attempts to justify war with bad arguments. If it were the case that the burden of proof about weapons of mass destruction was Iraq's burden, and that we invaded even after inspectors revealed that there were no weapons of mass destruction there, then theAdministration suggests that they chose to invade in spite of mitigating information. Therefore, no argument was reasonable enough to prevent a U.S. invasion of Iraq under the Bush Administration making preemption, according to Cheney's statement, an inevitability. Taking the argument a step further: Justice relies on considering mitigating information; and there is no true justice if there is no mitigation. However, the Administration invaded in spite of mitigation.Consequently, the invasion of Iraq was not just.