The 4th line of thought by critics questioned the Bush Administration's risk-assessment as incomplete: --- Sunstein, Cass R., WORST-CASE SCENARIOS, Harvard University Press, USA, 2007, p.144: "The war in Iraq was defended as a means to avoiding catastrophe, and it might even have been justified by reference to the Catastrophic Harm Precautionary Principle..." (because the Bush Administration believed -at the time- there was) a "chance... of a... nuclear or biological attack... But a war to remove him (Saddam) from power itself created serious risks (therefore) "in deciding on steps to reduce catastrophic risk, regulators should take into account the possibility that those steps will impose risks of their own, including catastrophic risks".

Source author: Eric Suzán Reed esuzan@sre.gob.mx