It’s spelled nukular
The US administration is proposing a policy of first nuclear strike against enemies — both states and non-states — that are “intending to use WMD” against US or allied targets. Besides the immorality of such a policy, the fact is that the current administration has consistently misled the US public about other nations’ WMD capabilities. First, it invented Iraqi chemical and biological weapons out of thin air; and more recently, the State Department has been denying evidence that Iran is not refining weapons-grade uranium with its centrifuges. In other words: the current US administration can be trusted to lie about the WMD threat. Now, it wants to pre-emptively nuke anyone who it claims has WMDs and threatens the US, which would (conveniently) destroy any evidence of the lack of evidence in the administration’s case.
Clinton was well-known for lobbing Tomahawk missiles at Sudan and Afghanistan whenever Senate hearings got particularly heated. Will future presidents drop nukes on third-world cities to help muster support for a crucial bill?
All this would be quite amusing, if it didn’t involve the deaths of millions of innocent people.
If the US Congress has any spine left, it should make sure that a President can’t launch a nuclear strike before jihadi missiles have been positively sighted heading towards American shores. (And before you mention the targets of those jihadi missiles — they ought to be protected by Bush’s vaunted missile defense; the whole point of missile defense being the ability to defend from a limited attack without being forced to use the nuclear option yourself.)