main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

War Crimes and the Bush administration

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Dec 13, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Thanks for the info Flyer.
    Still, the U.S. have opposed that ICC since the beginning, even Clinton - and they have a veto in the Security Council. So if anyone's going to sue the Bush posse, it's going to have to start with Obama.

    Oh and I think Belgium has a law that says they can sue anyone, anywhere. They almost sued Ariel Sharon...

    EDIT.
    It appears it's a bit more complicated to get Bush sued, guys. There's all sorts of national/international mentalities, identities and conflicts at work here, if we're to believe this article:
     
  2. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Not only do I hope they do, they must. He was directly responsible for the murder of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians and must be tried for those deaths

    Was FDR/Truman responsible for the 'murder' of countless Japanese and Germans? Koreans?

    LBJ and Vietnam?

    Reagan and Grenada?

    I don't mean to sound glib, but to just say that he is directly responsible without backing it up, and I'm pretty sure that you can't, is just silly to say the least.


     
  3. Blithe

    Blithe Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Abraham Lincoln and the Union millitary during the Civil War could also easily qualify for half of that U.N. list. It certainly makes things more tricky when calling someone a war criminal. . .
     
  4. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    What makes the Bush Administration different is that they lied to everyone about the intelligence before going into the war.
     
  5. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I've not yet seen the evidence that Bush intentionally lied. From when he first started making the case, it seemed to me like a case of bad judgement and not impartially evaluating the available evidence due to personal biases and assumptions about what Iraq would be up to.
     
  6. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    The difference between a lie and intentionally ignoring all available contrary evidence (to the conclusion you want) is a thin one.
     
  7. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I'd disagree. I think too often people very willingly will ignore the evidence they don't like for the sake of the conlusion they feel should be correct. Of course, there is something FUNDAMENTALLY problematic if this is happening behind the closed doors that decide on a war, but its also fundamentally different from choosing to lie. There were plenty of people, at that time, that thought Iraq had the WMDs but opposed the war.
     
  8. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    My take on this is pretty much based on Bob Woodward's book State of Denial. If that account is accurate, then Bush was clearly misled by the CIA and the famous "slam dunk" evidence touted by Tenet. Unfortunately, the culture within the Bush adninstration (if you're not with me you're not a patriot) did not create an atmosphere that engendered critical analysis or more importantly critical verbal analysis with any of the Bush principals. People held private concerns about the evidence, but were reluctant to verbalise those concerns with Bush.
     
  9. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    I've always been under the impression that it was never about WMDs.
    It was about control, from day one.
    The rationale was: with terrorists running loose around the Middle-East, threatening your way of life, you can't have such a big chunk of country in the middle of it controlled by a dictator. That's why America needed to go to war with Iraq. And fast.

    There were UN inspectors on the ground, checking out the WMD stock, - they hadn't found any, they'd almost finished the search but they were pulled out before... Before what? Before Bush needed to go to war.
     
  10. VadersLaMent

    VadersLaMent Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Apr 3, 2002
    If I had anything remotely close to the smoke surrounding the Bush admin I'd be put on trial without much of a wait. Hell, in a recent speech he said that removing Saddam was the reason we went in. No. The reason we went in was the constant story of WMD's. I recall long after the first day a reporter asking Bush as he went across the White House lawn if he would have invaded even if ke knew beforehand that there were no WMD's. He actually replied, "Yes."

    Anyway, it appears that Nixon was right. When the Prez does it it's not illegal.
     
  11. DeathStar1977

    DeathStar1977 Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jan 31, 2003
    Lowbacca

    Good points. I'd add that they were shady in terms of how they sold the war to the public, but as far as making the whole thing up...well, Saddam was a horrible dictator.
     
  12. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    My first post wasn't very well worded.

    To me, it is more scary that Bush was incompetent than to think him or some in his administration cooked up a secret plot and knew they were giving bad information.

    I've read most of State of Denial, and from what I have seen I don't see any reason to doubt that was a fairly accurate representation. Why so many people on the left have this need to see Bush as some sort of James Bond villian, I just don't know. Yes he did lie, but it was mostly when he was being a cheerleader for how the war was going when what we needed was a leader.

    Cheney and Rumsfield did some very stupid things and gave a lot of bad advice, but whatever lies they told, I think they actually believed them.

    I know torture isn't the best information gathering tool, or even one we should use often. It shouldn't even be our policy and those who do it should be punished. But when and if it is really needed, I hope we have brave patriots willing to sacrifice themselves to get that information. But it should be so vital that the people doing it, do so with the same conviction of stepping in front of a bullet to protect this country. I don't think that is something our leaders should be asking of the people who serve this country unless they themselves are willing to take that bullet as well. As a society that wishes to abide by the rule of law, we might have to send to jail the brave men and women who tortured someone and thereby saved us all.

    What I am trying to say here is that perhaps we were justified in torturing "mastermind of 9/11." And yes it would be helpful to find out what happened. But since it was such a difficult time for the people involved and our nation's leaders, I don't think it is warrented to seek vengence on those who did it. We may still have to deal with the consequence of letting that man go free. It would be helpful to make clear that it is against the policy of the United States to torture, and even punish those who engage in it in the future.

    Frankly I have a lot more sympathy for the Bush administration getting us into the mess in Iraq because even they realize now the problems they created, than the leaders who got us into the financial mess we are in now. Because those leaders are still totally unrepentent and refuse to acknowledge it was their policies that lead us to this hole. And far more wealth has been destroyed by them than by Bush's war. (Of course I include Bush along with those economic leaders, but in that sphere he is just one actor of many) I could go on, but it would just be easier to link to this NYT editorial that said it better: link
     
  13. Lowbacca_1977

    Lowbacca_1977 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jun 28, 2006
    I think that sounds about right, where its not a concious effort to marginalise all evidence indicating that Iraq had no WMDs, per se, but a general pressure of the culture created within the administration.
     
  14. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
    To me, it is more scary that Bush was incompetent than to think him or some in his administration cooked up a secret plot and knew they were giving bad information.


    I just flash back to a line in All the President's Men: "These aren't very bright guys." They were, of course, and are, but in the ways they truly needed to be sharp, they were an abysmal failure.
     
  15. Master_SweetPea

    Master_SweetPea Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 2002
    The Important thing is that we NEED closure as a nation.
    There MUST be an investigation.
    Allegations of torture will not die, until all the facts are examined.
    Those who committed acts of "cruel and unusual punishment" must be brought to justice.
    Those who misled the the nation, must answer for their crimes.

    Iraq is a mess from start to finish.
    The question remains, if there were no weapons why have all the illegal delivery systems for them?
    one example http://www.snopes.com/photos/military/sandplanes.asp
    or
    if Iraq was such a nice place why did they shoot at our aircraft patrolling the no fly zone everyday?
    etc.

    it's an argument where all sides seem to be wrong, and no one is right.

     
  16. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I believe Saddam wanted everyone to think he had WMD. I recall the evidence indicated the presence of WMD programs just no actual WMD. Also, Saddam was an Arab with an Arab's obsessive pre-occupation for saving face, unfortunately by not complying with external sanctions and directives, it led to his eventual ruin.
     
  17. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    I think Saddam was scared he couldn't keep his citizens in line if he admitted he didn't have any WMD.
     
  18. LtNOWIS

    LtNOWIS Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 19, 2005
    Allegedly, he wanted people to think he had WMDs, in order to deter invasion.

    Which backfired dramatically.
     
  19. Espaldapalabras

    Espaldapalabras Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 25, 2005
    Only because he was trying to deter Iranian invasion.
     
  20. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    I think this is how the Iraqis are going to remember him.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kELXEA7CoRE
     
  21. SuperWatto

    SuperWatto Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Sep 19, 2000
    Pretty good throw.
    Some good dodging there by Bush jr., as well...
     
  22. dianethx

    dianethx Jedi Grand Master star 6

    Registered:
    Mar 1, 2002
    I was rooting for the shoe. Apparently, so were a lot of other people.
     
  23. goraq

    goraq Jedi Youngling star 4

    Registered:
    May 15, 2008
    ,,I was rooting for the shoe. Apparently, so were a lot of other people.,,

    Damm wright.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7792616.stm
     
  24. LostOnHoth

    LostOnHoth Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Feb 15, 2000
    I'm not sure where to post this so I dredged up this old thread.

    From the Sydney Morning Herald Today: Rumsfeld mixed Bible with intelligence for Bush: report

    http://www.smh.com.au/world/rumsfeld-mixed-bible-with-intelligence-for-bush-report-20090519-bd0m.html

    I know it's not a war crime to quote Christian scripture alongside pictures of US tanks and troops going to war on intelligence reports but what the hell is that about?

     
  25. KnightWriter

    KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus star 9 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 6, 2001
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.