Iraq invasion in 2003 was illegitimate: Dutch probe

I will grant you that one Cy. It is of course only true if all had access to the same intelligence. But then again, I think if I were a democrat member of congress, I would at the least want my leaders to speak to those supplying the intel before committing to a course of action that would lead to war. But, as I like to say, I can't say for sure since I've never been in that position. So I can easily see them taking the intel at face value.

I think, when it comes to Iraq, that our leadership failed on many levels. In hindsight I think most sane people will agree we could have avoided using military action. But that does not necessarily make our government leaders guilty of any war crime. Again, I'm not overly familiar with international law concerning this and as such will not get into arguments over the legality of the invasion. If some believe Bush to be a war criminal, so be it. Every leader from every country that sent troops should be viewed likewise. I just cannot wrap myself around the idea that Bush can be viewed as solely responsible.

I can agree with that Cy. Bottom line has always been that the war was pushed by most republicans and maybe a sprinkling of democrats. This is inescapable and republicans paid a price for that in the last few elections. As they should have. And the reality is (in my opinion) that had the intel been dead on and WMD really had existed and was under Saddam's control, then we would not be lamenting Bush's decision to send in troops and would not have any sane person accusing him or anyone else of war crimes.

In my heart I believe that Bush et others believed that Iraq probably did have WMD

Colin Powell said Iraq was not a threat

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again.

On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years". America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, [Mid July, 2001] Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda ... .

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=229

Set, as someone once told me, if the shoe fits, etc.

I did not explicitly accuse you of anything.

If you believe I did, then please point out what I claimed you said and feel free to refute it.

You cannot claim that many of those who opposed Bush with a hatred that seems a bit excessive have not accused him of war crimes and yearn for the day when he and his cronies are brought to justice. I was simply pointing out that people who insist on that way of thinking have no choice but to accuse our military of being willing participants in the mass murders and thus cupable also. I am quite open to hearing arguments to the contrary.

I'm sorry you have taken direct offense at what I wrote. But as usual, you manage to resort to name calling and language that is inappropriate. Nothing new there. So you can be done with me for all I care. That doesn't really bother me in the least.

. . .is that y'all are really quick to cry for all these people who died during a war with Iraq (and rightly so, since death should never be something we celebrate) and try to claim that American soldiers were mass murderers but y'all seem strangely silent about atrocities and true instances of mass murder elsewhere that American soldiers have no presence. I guess it is only when our military is involved that some of you find large numbers of dead people appalling.

No, you desire to persist in claiming that members of the Bush government are war criminals for killing masses of innocent Iraqis. The problem you face is that you cannot claim that American leaders are mass murderers without claiming that our soldiers were complacent in the mass murders.

I consider that Bush avoids a charge of war criminal by a hair's breadth, in that he had war powers from the Congress. I also sincerely doubt that he is evil, although he is certainly stupid--but intent matters, too, and i don't think he can be accused of intending to commit war crimes. On a purely American constitutional basis, he is not criminal.

For the record, i don't consider that Bush is a war criminal. Some obscure members of his administration might be culpable in the Abu Ghraib incidents and other examples of torture, but i'm sure the big boys have their collective ass well papered. That administration used the fig leaf of an ultimatum, and then ignored the report of the inspectors that the Iraqis were complying. At the same time, Hussein pushed it as far as he could, and just happened to have pushed it too far, in an idiotic attempt to claim to West that he was complying, and still trying to play the tough guy for "the Arab street." I don't think that justified war, and all of the accusations about weapons of mass destruction and Cheney's attempt to imply that the Iraqis were complicit in the September 11th attacks yield absolutely zero proof. I consider that Bush avoids a charge of war criminal by a hair's breadth, in that he had war powers from the Congress. I also sincerely doubt that he is evil, although he is certainly stupid--but intent matters, too, and i don't think he can be accused of intending to commit war crimes. On a purely American constitutional basis, he is not criminal. Of course, that means that a hell of a lot of Congressmen and -women have a terrible responsibility here, for letting their fear of voter backlash stampede them into giving the idiot child war powers. Notably, the man who now occupies 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue did not vote for this war.

Set, I'm not sure what to say since you've already said you were done with me.

I've stated quite clearly that I at no time pointed at you and stated that you were one of those to whom the "y'all" was referring to.

You choose not to believe me and to continue to call me names. Since I can write nothing more than what I've already done concerning your protestations, I'll leave you to your ranting.

Just as an aside, you do have a funny way of being done with someone.

And in an effort to move discussion away from our little issue, I will say that I can agree with just about everything you have said here. The only thing I would disagree with is that I don't think Bush is stupid. Certainly not the brightest bulb in the country, but I wouldn't go so far as stupid. But I can understand those who think him otherwise.

Probably all my fault Cy. I guess I just don't make myself clear at times, which leads to misunderstandings and then things go all to hell and back real quick. When will I ever learn.

Now you're doing it again. You only made those remarks after the fact. At the time i responded to your original post, you had made no such disclaimer.

You see, this is why i call you a creep. I believe that that was probably not your intent, but you didn't mention that until after you had made your string of accusations, so what would you expect?

I call you names because you have consistently lied, and come up with **** like "just come out and say it," and "if the shoe fits." Those kinds of remarks are uncalled for, so you get an "uncalled for" response in return. You made no disclaimers until after i had laid into you for your baseless accusations.

Good question. Part of me says I really don't see the point in doing so. And yet I understand the argument that some would make for doing so. The bottom line for me is that there was widespread belief (as I remember it) that Saddam had WMD. Yes, there was conflicting intel out there, but the fact is that we really did not know. This was a failure in our intelligence community in coming up with a concensus view. Yes, reports may well have been spun to go with the prevailing view that WMD existed in order to help justify the invasion.

In hindsight, we were wrong. But at the time, from even the Clinton administration, there was a belief that Saddam had or was developing WMD. Based on that, I don't think prosecuting anyone gets us anywhere other than to divert our attention from things that we need to be addressing as a nation.