The Worst President in History?

What Date, Page and Article of the Washington Post?

Department of Defense? Do you know how many searches one would have to make to find what you claim was said by the DOD?

Provide a link please. If you go to another thread, you will note that Ticomaya has indicated that you often do not provide links.

Please provide links!!!!!

And what exactly will links prove to you?

Here's the Washington Post article:

Lacking Biolabs, Trailers Carried Case for War
Administration Pushed Notion of Banned Iraqi Weapons Despite Evidence to Contrary

By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.


U.S. officials asserted that Iraq had biological weapons factories in trailers, even after a Pentagon mission found them unsuited for that role.
U.S. officials asserted that Iraq had biological weapons factories in trailers, even after a Pentagon mission found them unsuited for that role. (By Pfc. Joshua Hutcheson Via Associated Press)
Graphic
From 'Biological Laboratories' to Harmless Trailers
Two Iraqi trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops became a center-piece of U.S. claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But shortly after the fall of Baghdad, an internal report showed the trailers had nothing to do with banned weapons.
News From Iraq

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories.

The authors of the reports were nine U.S. and British civilian experts -- scientists and engineers with extensive experience in all the technical fields involved in making bioweapons -- who were dispatched to Baghdad by the Defense Intelligence Agency for an analysis of the trailers. Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.

None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized. Their accounts were verified by other current and former government officials knowledgeable about the mission. The contents of the final report, "Final Technical Engineering Exploitation Report on Iraqi Suspected Biological Weapons-Associated Trailers," remain classified. But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological weapons. Those interviewed took care not to discuss the classified portions of their work.

"There was no connection to anything biological," said one expert who studied the trailers. Another recalled an epithet that came to be associated with the trailers: "the biggest sand toilets in the world."


I know you'll end up using this as toilet paper, but I expected that before I even posted my previous post about FACT.

Besides, I have grave doubt you even understand the English language.

Go chase down the DOD "REPORT ON GUANTANAMO DETAINEES," A Profile of 517 Detainees through Analysis of Department of Defense Data, By Mark Denbeaux, Professor, Seton Hall University School of Law and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees.

Tell us what you find.

Now, that's not nice, c.i. I hope you haven't let emotion supercede your reason. That's Argumentum ad Hominem. That's a no-no.

Why don't you try me out, c.i. Give me a real tough one to see if I understand. You can start with the Ginn Publisher Series on "Dick and Jane"

You're the one that needs emotianal, reading skills, and psychiatric help; you can't even respond to evidence provided on which you make such a big deal to demand. You took the bait. ha ha ha

You want links? What for? When provided, you can't even respond to them. Proven over and over. What do you think those links are? Ad hominems? You don't even know the meaning of the word.

You need to grow up and respond to questions answered and provided for with links/evidence/source.

Your debating skills lack any promise, so quit trying. You'll only show yourself to be a loser and more ignorant.

cicerone, in regard to atrocities in Vietnam, I would like to tie up some loose ends for you. Here is part of Kerry's quotes before Congress in 1971:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

cicerone, perhaps if you had the courage to face one truth, that just perhaps one of your liberal icons is not what you think, you just might start waking up from your incredible bubble. I will try to help you. When Kerry testified before Congress, he knew the above was not accurate because he had been to Vietnam, and his famous Winter Soldier summit in Detroit - it has been verified was made up of primarily phonies, people that never served in combat, or were not even in the military, or were not in Vietnam. There were a few very isolated atrocities, but nothing resembling what Kerry described on a widespread basis. I was there for 12 months in combat zones in combat units and never witnessed or even heard of one incident of cruelty, rape, or anything remotely resembling what was described.

Now, I don't know what you would conclude, cicerone, but what I concluded was that Mr. Kerry has another agenda totally foreign to anything resembling anything I know about or any of my friends or acquaintances know about. Experiences like these and knowledge of what some of my fellow 60's generation did have gone a long way in turning me into a staunch conservative. As much as I have hated to face the reality of it because I don't understand it, there are people that apparently dislike the United States of America and will lie and blame it for everything first. My dad served in the Pacific in WWII. I grew up hearing about that period of history and I learned about the realities of Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Too many people have died to allow 60's pot smoking pipsqueaks to be made out as heros when they are bordering on being traitors.

okie, Your unit must be the only one with a clean slate. I've talked to Vietnam vets after they returned from the war, and "they" told me about the atrocities they and their fellow soldiers committed.

Here's one report, and I can assure you I can find many more.

Article published Sunday, September 5, 2004

TIGER FORCE
Ex-officer may face justice for atrocities
Army lawyer calls for war-crime charge

By JOE MAHR
BLADE STAFF WRITER

Three decades after an Army platoon repeatedly executed unarmed civilians and prisoners in Vietnam, a military lawyer has recommended the unit's former commander be brought up on a war-crime charge.

In what would be an unprecedented event, retired Maj. James Hawkins could face a military court-martial regarding his actions commanding a platoon known as Tiger Force that killed hundreds of unarmed men, women, and children 37 years ago, The Blade has learned.

As the scope of war crimes in Vietnam becomes a key question in the presidential election, the military lawyer recommended this spring that Army officials charge Mr. Hawkins, who led Tiger Force between July and November, 1967.

The recommendation came during a broader Army review of Tiger Force prompted by a four-part series in The Blade in October. The series revealed the platoon's seven-month rampage through Vietnam's Central Highlands in 1967.

Already steeped in investigations of abuse by U.S. soldiers of Iraqi prisoners, the Army has not yet decided whether to prosecute Mr. Hawkins. Questions remain over whether Army lawyers have the legal power to charge the 63-year-old former officer.

Mr. Hawkins was among 18 former Tiger Force soldiers accused by Army investigators of crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty during a 4 1/2-year Army investigation between 1971 and 1975. But the case was dropped by the Pentagon and concealed from the public until revealed in The Blade series, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

Hawkins admitted shooting elderly man
Sources familiar with the review did not offer details of the charge recommended against Mr. Hawkins. The most serious allegation he faced in 1975 was the fatal shooting of an elderly carpenter in the Song Ve Valley in July, 1967 - for which Army investigators in 1975 recommended he be charged with murder. The former officer was accused by fellow soldiers of ordering the shootings of more than a dozen other unarmed civilians, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges in those cases.

Mr. Hawkins, who lives in the Orlando, Fla., area, declined to comment Friday. But in an extensive interview with The Blade in 2003, he admitted killing the elderly man on the edge of the Song Ve River because "he was making too much noise."

Based on classified records and interviews with former soldiers and Vietnamese civilians, The Blade series described the 45-member unit's rampage through two provinces between May and November, 1967 - the longest-known series of atrocities committed by a U.S. battle unit in the war.

Soldiers hurled grenades into underground bunkers full of women and children. They shot elderly farmers toiling in their fields. They severed the ears of the dead to fashion into necklaces. One former unit medic told The Blade that soldiers "would go into villages and just shoot everybody. We didn't need an excuse. If they were there, they were dead."

Records show that two soldiers in the platoon, Lt. Donald Wood of Findlay, and Sgt. Gerald Bruner of Colon, Mich., tried to stop the atrocities but were transferred from the platoon after they complained to superiors.

Army considered charge of murder during 1970s
As a result of the Army's investigation completed 29 years ago, murder charges were recommended against Mr. Hawkins and another high-ranking platoon member, Sgt. Harold Trout. After avoiding charges in 1975, the pair were promoted and eventually retired with full military pensions.

Although Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout have long been out of the Army, the fact they have pensions qualifies them to be recalled to duty, under a rarely used but widely accepted military law.

On behalf of the Army's Criminal Investigation Command, Army Reserve lawyer Michael Walther reviewed the original case and The Blade series, according to sources familiar with the current review. Mr. Walther concluded this spring that the evidence was strong enough to return Mr. Hawkins to duty for an Article 32 hearing - the equivalent of a military grand jury - for his actions in 1967.

There is no statute of limitations on murder. If charged in a court-martial and convicted, the former officer could face punishment ranging from a reduced pension to imprisonment.

Action not recommended against former sergeant
At the same time, Mr. Walther, who also works for the Department of Justice, recommended Mr. Trout not be recalled to duty, citing insufficient evidence.

Army investigators in 1975 had recommended that Mr. Trout be charged with murder after two soldiers witnessed the sergeant executing a wounded Vietnamese man, according to their sworn statements. Four other witnesses during the investigation accused Mr. Trout of ordering the killing of at least three other unarmed civilians, including a young mother whose hut had been burned by troops, but investigators in 1975 did not recommend charges on those allegations.

Mr. Walther did not return a phone call for comment last week.

Mr. Trout refused to talk to investigators in 1973 and has declined to talk about the case to The Blade, except to say last year that "it was a long time ago."

Tiger Force was created in November, 1965, as a special reconnaissance/ combat unit that broke into small teams to hunt the enemy.

Within two years, the platoon had gained a reputation as an acclaimed unit before numerous platoon members began targeting prisoners and civilians throughout two provinces.

The atrocities began in May, 1967, near Duc Pho, and continued after the unit moved to the remote Song Ve Valley, just as the Army was starting to force civilians from the area into relocation camps.

The valley, which was supposed to be evacuated, is where the platoon ran into the elderly carpenter on July 23, 1967, as he was crossing a river.

The unit had been drinking beer most of the day, according to witnesses, and by the time they encountered the carpenter, many were drunk. Two of the soldiers escorted the man toward the rear of the element, where Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Trout were walking. With the carpenter babbling loudly, Mr. Trout clubbed the man with a rifle. As Tiger Force medic Barry Bowman began to treat the wounded villager, Mr. Hawkins lifted the carpenter up from where he was kneeling and shot him in the face with a Carbine 15 rifle, according to sworn statements to Army investigators in the early 1970s.

At least four witnesses said the carpenter was pleading for his life before he was shot by Mr. Hawkins.

In an interview with The Blade last year, Mr. Hawkins justified the killing by saying the carpenter's voice was loud enough to alert the enemy to the American unit's position: "I eliminated that right there." But four Tiger Force soldiers told Army investigators that there were other ways to silence the carpenter and said the shooting gave away the unit's position anyway.

Former soldiers complained to investigators of other incidents with Mr. Hawkins, including a time he ordered the platoon to open fire on 10 elderly farmers working in their field, records show. Four died.

Army investigators recommended in June, 1975, that Mr. Hawkins be charged with the murder of the carpenter, identified in The Blade series as Dao Hue.

Five months later, Mr. Hawkins was summoned to the Pentagon with his supervising general, William Maddox, and told the case would be closed, Mr. Hawkins has said. A note in his Army criminal file says that "no beneficial or constructive results would be derived from criminal prosecution."

Mr. Hawkins, by then a helicopter pilot, was promoted to major, retired in 1978, and began collecting his military pension. He was immediately rehired by the Army as a civilian flight instructor in Alabama, retired in 2001 to collect a second government pension, and moved to Florida.

Despite the pending recommendation for prosecution, questions remain whether the Army can recall Mr. Hawkins for punishment.

The military can't force the return of members who left the service before being eligible for retirement. Because of that, many of the 18 Tiger Force suspects who left the Army after Vietnam avoided any chance of prosecution. But for retired soldiers, case law dating to the Civil War allows the military to recall them to duty.

Military says the case remains under review
One question about Mr. Hawkins' case centers on his previous status in the Army as a "reserve" officer - a classification at the time given to most active-duty officers who didn't graduate from military service academies.

Military law historically has been less willing to allow the recall of members of "reserve" forces than those in the "regular" Army, although it's not unprecedented. A 1996 law permits the Army to recall a reserve officer who retired with 20 years active-duty service, and a military court in 1999 allowed the Air Force to recall a retired reserve officer for punishment.

Lt. Col. Tyler Harder, who taught about the recall concept for years at the Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School, said if Mr. Hawkins committed the accused crime while on active duty, "there is little doubt" he could be recalled for prosecution.

So far, Army officials won't say when their review of the Tiger Force case will be finished. All Army spokesman Dov Schwartz would say Friday was that the case remained open.

U.S. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D., Cleveland), who pushed for the review, has said he was told it would be done by March. He sent a letter in May asking for an update on the case, and the Army hasn't responded.

An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Pamela Hart, initially had indicated Aug. 12 that the case had been closed but later said she was misinformed and the Army had not yet decided what to do with the recommendation from the Criminal Investigation Command.

"It's still in the review process by our Staff Judge Advocate," she said. "There has been no ultimate, final conclusion."

Contact Joe Mahr at: [email protected] or 419-724-6180.

Bernard - there are 3 pages of CI telling you facts and asking you to respond to those facts. You have not responded at all.


This is your only argument? It seems you are the one that can't address the issue.

Here's more on Vietnam atrocities. I don't think okie served in the same war:

8-30-04
Interview with Richard Moser: Was Kerry Right About Vietnam Atrocities?

Much has been made recently of the Winter Soldier investigation, at which Vietnam veterans claimed they had been involved in -- or heard of -- war crimes and atrocities. To find out more about the investigation and the accuracy of John Kerry's testimony about it before the Senate in 1971, we turned to Mr. Moser, the author of The New Winter Soldiers: Gi and Veteran Dissent During the Vietnam Era (Rutgers University Press, 1996). HNN caught him with him by phone as he was preparing to move from Washington DC to New Jersey.

HNN: The Wall Street Journal last week said that John Kerry made allegations that were never proven about atrocities in Vietnam when he testified before the Senator Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. Do you agree?

Moser: I can't speak directly to John Kerry's allegations of war crimes and atrocities. What I can speak to is the question whether war crimes and atrocities were committed in Vietnam. The answer to that is very clear. Yes, indeed, war crimes and atrocities were committed in Vietnam.

The simple fact is that war crimes have occurred in every war. That is a clearly proved part of the record and I'd like to see anyone prove otherwise. Attempts to suggest there were no war crimes in Vietnam is part of an ongoing attempt to sanitize war in general. And of course it begs the question of what a war crime is.

What people don't know is that as far back as World War I we hit a historic crossroads where more civilians died in conflicts than soldiers. That was true as far back as World War I and it's been true of every single conflict since. So if war crimes are the killing of civilians in war then war crimes have occurred in every war since World War I. In Vietnam it was particularly egregious. The best estimates are that somewhere around fifteen civilians were killed for every combatant. So that was a very lopsided ratio.

I don't want to say that all wars are the same because the possibility for war crimes to occur increases when war is unjust and by that I'm talking about historically debated reasons of what makes wars just and unjust. Wars that are fought with an overriding clear moral purpose are not considered unjust in the historical debate -- mostly those are wars of defense that are considered legitimate. Wars of aggression, wars of preemption are not considered legitimate wars. Wars are not legitimate if they could be avoided by other means, diplomatic, economic, what have you. And wars where one side has a preponderance of power, overwhelming military power. No matter what the justification, if one side has overwhelming military power compared with the other it is not a just war because it implies that other means could have been used to solve the problem.

So if you put that together, if you are fighting in an unjust war the possibility for war crimes and atrocities increases dramatically. And this is the situation we had in Vietnam and I have to say it's returning today in some regards in Iraq. So in an atrocity-producing situation -- an unjust war -- you are much more likely to have everyday kinds of people not able to resist the tendency toward committing atrocities. And that happens because what's viewed as the conventional way that war is fought with clear combatants falls apart. You are fighting people and cannot distinguish between friends and enemies, between civilians and combatants. And in a situation like that the tendency is to take actions against everyone. And that occurred to some extent in Vietnam and is occurring to some degree in Iraq today. So once you are in that situation then these things happen frequently.

In Vietnam there's no doubt that we have war crimes. The most famous of course is My Lai, but there's a whole series of them. And these are documented. The courts martial -- the military's own records, are archived here in Washington. So a lot of those have been very clearly documented over time. And recall Bob Kerrey's recent revelation of his own involvement in killing civilians in Vietnam-that was what a year, a year and a half ago. .

Am I saying every soldier was involved in this? Of course, not. But there was a pattern of abuse of violence. That's one reason why we see so much traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam veterans and will see among Iraq veterans. PTSD is triggered by exposure to abuse of violence and high-stakes betrayal -- situations where soldiers feel they were betrayed. They were sent on a mission they thought was a lofty one, a good one and then they found out that the mission was very confused, murky, as war often is. And they are putting their lives on the line for what is no longer clear. They were exposed to the abuse of violence. And that was true in Vietnam.

There is no doubt there was a pattern of abuse of civilians and war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam. You only have to look at the Iraq prison scandals to see how it gets repeated, particularly when one side has this disproportionate power over the other. You give someone enough power over someone else in the end there will be a percentage of people who abuse their power.

Let me give you a key source or two. One of the key figures to read on this Telford Taylor. He was the principal prosecutor at the Nuremburg Trials for the United States after World War II. He wrote a book called Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy, in which he discussed the issue of whether Vietnam should be judged by the same standards and is in the same category as the Nuremberg Trials. He gives a very dispassionate look and in the end he says he's not sure. It's an open question. In a way his very neutrality is quite damning, isn't it, because here's a man who is very intimate with what war crimes are and he said it's an open question.

HNN: There has been mention made of the Winter Soldier investigation. Kerry referred to it in his Senate testimony. What was this?

Moser: This was in 1971. It was an attempt by a group of soldiers organized under the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) to let the American public know about the brutality and viciousness of the war in Vietnam. And so a group of soldiers got together [in Detroit] -- about 100 or so people -- gave testimony about so-called war crimes in South Vietnam in which soldiers reported on either things they were directly involved in or had heard about. That was the cause of much of the speculation, of course, about whether these people were speaking the truth. Without making a judgment about any particular allegation, there is no doubt that the kinds of things these veterans testified to fit a pattern that we can prove using other sources.

HNN: Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" interviewing Senator Kerry said that the Winter Soldier investigation has been discredited. Has it?

Moser: I have never seen a documented investigation of that analysis that discredits it. I have never seen it. If it exists, I'd like to hear it, I'd like to see it. What you hear people say is that they weren't really veterans, which they say about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in general. It's total malarkey. Not that there weren't a few poseurs in the ranks, oh that's true, I don't care who you look at, any group. But basically there has never been a scholarly work done that discredits the individuals in that investigation or the allegations that they made.

HNN: John Kerry in the same interview seemed to distance himself from his testimony in 1971. Does he have any reason to do so other than politics?

Moser: At the Senate hearing Kerry said people said that they had witnessed atrocities, that these men claimed that they had participated in war crimes. He never himself claimed to have witnessed a war crime or been a party to one.

So his testimony was accurate. People claimed that war crimes occurred. So there's no real reason to distance himself from that other than he might feel that it's a hot political issue. As far as the record, no. But of course the nuances, the truth and the history get lost in the symbolic fray of an election year. And the nuance was that he was reporting what other people had said. And other people did say it. He was reporting truthfully.

HNN: Why is it that historians have not pursued an investigation of the Winter Soldier investigation?

Moser: Good question. I can tell you this. My book, The New Winter Soldiers, was published in 1996. It was the first serious scholarly look at soldier anti-war dissent in Vietnam. There have been a number of other things that have come out since. But in general the problem with soldiers protesting the very war they had fought in is that it was clearly jarring to peoples' understanding of the United States and what it stood for, of our high moral values, of our special moral role in the world, and here was something that seemed to set all that on its head. And so I think people had a hard time making sense of it. And so even though this story [about the Winter Soldier investigation] was a well-known story in the seventies, it was really forgotten during the eighties that there had been this huge movement of veterans.

And it was huge. They spoke for almost half the veterans as best we can figure, that half the veterans opposed the war. (That's more people by the way than opposed the war on college campuses, I must point out, in terms of percentages.) And I think it was too jarring to fit into the narrative of American history. Part of my work is to put the narrative in what I hope is a creative way, which is to say that when soldiers are sent to do a job that is in conflict with the best of American values that in that situation dissent becomes patriotic. In my view the New Winter Soldiers -- the Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- held up the best of American military traditions and political traditions. The war they were sent to fight was an unjust war, unworthy of America's best traditions and values. Even I had to struggle to fit what they did into the narrative of American history and I ended up turning the narrative upside down and envisioning these anti-war protesters as in fact the most patriotic heroes of the period.

HNN: Thank you.

Related Links

* John Kerry: How Do You Ask a Man to Be the Last Man to Die in Vietnam? (Testimony, 1971)

* Fran Shor: Hello ... So There Weren't Atrocities in Vietnam

* Nick Turse: The Vietnam War Crimes You Never Heard Of

* Nick Turse: Atrocities Were Common in Vietnam (We Just Didn't Hear About Them)

* Was Kerry Right About Atrocities in Vietnam? (Boston Globe)

* Gene Healy: "Exterminate All the Brutes"

* William Marina: Torture & Civilian Deaths in Three Counterinsurgencies

* What Was John Kerry's Role in the Winter Soldier Investigation? (Newsday)

* Mike Davis: The Vietnam Atrocities an Ohio Newspaper Exposed

cicerone, I am going to clue you in on something. I can't explain it, but I will tell you it is more prevalent than most people realize. Before I go into it, I will say yes there probably were some isolated atrocities in Vietnam. Perhaps I was lucky, but it certainly was not because I was in the wrong place to know it. But anyhow, the something I wish to bring out is that in the 30 some years since Vietnam, I have personally met a number of people that made claims about Vietnam that I knew were nothing more than fabrications. I once read an article that found that a significant percentage of people that claimed problems due to Vietnam had either not been there or had not been in combat, or some had not even been in the military. They determined this by researching the people to verify their stories. Mental cases, for whatever reason, seem to choose military exploits as some of their imagined experiences. There was a recent article in the newspaper about people that claim military medals that they never earned, in fact, there is enough of a market that fake ones have been made to sell by various people.

I would be very cautious about believing anybody concerning their stories of Vietnam. Especially if they are drug users. (I will confirm there was plenty of drug use in Vietnam, not in the field field, but in the base camps.) And even seemingly verified published reports, some could be accurate, but look at them with skepticism. Some of your info. might be correct, but all I can tell you and virtually vouch for is my personal experience. As they say, don't believe anything you hear and only part of what you see. And the reason I have the opinion on Kerry is I know he was there for 4 months and he knows better deep down somewhere in the recesses of his brain, but for whatever reason he had or still has this "thing" about his own country.

okie, I talked to those vets wihtin a few months of their return from Nam, and they had no reason to lie about something so foreign to most people - especially civilians. Since that time, I h ave read articles about others admitting the same thing. Some, like the above article, peformed research, and confirmed that atrocities did occur in Vietnam. All of us remember that picrture of the young naked girl running away from napalm bombs - ours. Me Lai is not a figment of our imagination.

Vietnam is past, but we evidently did not learn the lesson from that tragedy.

You may scurry all you wish about your innocence; that really doesn't matter when American soldiers do the crime when wearing our uniform. We're supposed to have high ideals, but in war time, that's forgotten in the heat of battle.

Wars only kill many young people and innocent civilians. Humans have still not learned that lesson.

The article I posted above talks about all wars. Read it; it has a good message in it.

Okie- When I speak to people about the war in Iraq, I usually quote two sources. The first is a general source. A source which gives a philosophical justification for war.

The second source I quote about the war in Iraq is a more specific source. I quote President William Jefferson Clinton's speech of December 18th 1998 in which he sent missles, without Congressional authorization, to bomb Baghdad.

The first source--

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

I. THE EXISTENCE OF THE RIGHT OF WAR
The right of war is the right of a sovereign state to wage a contention at arms against another, and is in its analysis an instance of the general moral power of coercion, i.e. to make use of physical force to conserve its rights inviolable. Every perfect right, i.e. every right involving in others an obligation in justice a deference thereto, to be efficacious, and consequently a real and not an illusory power, carries with it at the last appeal the subsidiary right of coercion. A perfect right, then, implies the right of physical force to defend itself against infringement, to recover the subject-matter of right unjustly withheld or to exact its equivalent, and to inflict damage in the exercise of this coercion wherever, as is almost universally the case, coercion cannot be exercised effectively without such damage. The limitations of this coercive right are: that its exercise be necessary; and that damage be not inflicted beyond measure -- first of necessity and secondly of proportion with the subject-matter of right at issue. Furthermore, the exercise of coercion is restricted in civil communities to the public authority, for the reason that such restriction is a necessity of the common weal. In like manner the use of force beyond the region of defence and reparation, namely for the imposition of punishment to restore the balance of retributive justice by compensation for the mere violation of law and justice, as well as to assure the future security of the same, is reserved to public authority, for the reason that the State is the natural guardian of law and order, and to permit the individual, even in a matter of personal offence, to be witness, judge, and executioner all at once -- human nature being what it is -- would be a source of injustice rather than of equitable readjustment.

Now the State has corporate rights of its own which are perfect; it has also the duty to defend its citizens' rights; it consequently has the right of coercion in safeguarding its own and its citizens' rights in case of menace or violation from abroad as well as from at home, not only against foreign individuals, but also against foreign states. Otherwise the duty above indicated would be impossible of fulfillment; the corporate rights of the State would be nugatory, while the individual rights of citizens would be at the mercy of the outside world. The pressure of such coercion, it is true, may be applied in certain circumstances without both parties going to the extreme of complete national conflict; but when the latter arises, as it commonly will, we have war pure and simple, even as the first application of force is initial warfare. Catholic philosophy, therefore, concedes to the State the full natural right of war, whether defensive, as in case of another's attack in force upon it; offensive (more properly, coercive), where it finds it necessary to take the initiative in the application of force; or punitive, in the infliction of punishment for evil done against itself or, in some determined cases, against others. International law views the punitive right of war with suspicion; but, thought it is open to wide abuse, its original existence under the natural law cannot well be disputed


The second rationale for war in Iraq.

Speech by President Clinton on December 18th 1998--his rationale for sending Missles to attack Iraq on December 18th 1998

quote

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

end of quote

and then the NECESSITY to use force.

quote

"The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE, is the surest way to contain Saddam's WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION PROGRAM, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War."


Now, Okie, those quotes are not from another unknown book writer like Mr. Moser, they are from the DEMOCRATIC former President of the United States, who is presumed to have the data and intelligence which would enable him to make such a speech.

If you combine the philosophical rationale with the pragmatic one( as laid out by Clinton), it is clear that the Congress did not make a mistake when they gave the authority to President Bush on Oct. 10th and 11th to invade Iraq. Indeed, Okie, as is noted in Bob Woodward's book- "Bush at War" on P. 351- quote

The COngress gave Bush the full go-ahead to use the military "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" to defend against the threat of Iraq"

I think what makes Bush the worst president in history is the combination of bad policy and incompitence.

Then top it off with the lies and corruption and.......Bang! Worst president in history.

I think this will be the long term consensus.

Come on seriously hes not going to go down as the worst president.
1. He DID get elected TWICE by who? US you stupid idiots.
2. So because of this war in iraq where a couple of people got killed your just gonna forget about vietnam? But instead of kennedy being hated he for this war you all praise and worship his copses ass hole.

So come on hes not even worthy of being called the worst president yeah hes a tard and a puppet but not the worst president there have been far worse so find a better candidate!

Amigo, I agree 100 percent. Many history professors have declared George W Bush as one of the worst presidents our country has ever had. His approval keeps going south, and there's too many issues that the public is unhappy about including Iraq, illegal immigration, illegal wiretaps, the national debt, more middle-class families falling further behind, increase in Americans losing health insurance, and high fuel costs.

With three more years to screw things up much more, and Bush will not fail himself by following true to his incompetence.

oh come on you guys! focking nixon was so bad he resigned of his OWN accord!

Oh,please, cicerone Imposter. Even people who have been writing on these threads for a couple of days know better than write what you wrote--
quote

"Many History professors have declared George W.Bush as one of the worst presidents our country has ever had"

Do you really think we are children?

Which History professors?

Give a link.

I can give you a long list of History Professors who think Clinton was a terrible president--and I will quote directly--and I will give you a link for the quotes.

Bernard, Look for the link yourself. It's for you to challenge what I write; not for me to prove it false. Besides, links don't mean anything to the likes of you; you just ignore them. You can waste your own time.