The problem this thread will encounter is it is all about whether or not the War in Iraq can be justified. What we will see is people try to use the ends to justify the means- the war has caused chaos therefore it cannot be justified. That is the argument that will be deployed. Fact is however, with the evidence put forward the President acted in a manner that he felt was appropriate and a manner that was supported by his staff and leaders from across the world.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Most of the British didn't want to go to war with Hitler either.Russia didn't want to go to war because it wasn't a target of any possible Iraqi violence. Fact is three leading intelligence services said Iraq had WMDs. I suspect the MOSAD probably did too- though they would ofcourse.
If Bush didn't act and Saddam had the WMDs and used them (lets remember the time Saddam said he was going to sail Nukes up the thames and destroy London) then you would be here right now demanding Bush was prosecuted for inaction.
Regardless, most of those countries weren't in a rush to war like us. And regardless, the weapons inspectors of the UN were proving (as I say in my posts here if people would actually read them) there weren't any.
Originally posted by KidRock
murder = unlawful killing.Killing someone during a war is not murder.
Should we charge all 100,000 soldiers in Iraq as accomplices to murder? If we can charge the Manson Family with it why shouldnt we the soldiers?
As for the legalities and technical stuff, I can't expand on it as much as I'd like to. I'm not a lawyer. Read the book and let the lawyer do all of that explaining.
Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Do you really want to open that flood gate?If killing during war = murder then lets not only charge Bush but all soldiers, but lets also charge FDR (Got us into WWII) Lincoln (Civil War)... Heck, lets even give this country back to the British because of our murderous revolution.
If you want to talk about all the legality and so forth as I said read the book. Vincent can explain it better than I can.
Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
[B]Pretty sure it was the CIA, British intel, and Russian intel...
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The problem this thread will encounter is it is all about whether or not the War in Iraq can be justified. What we will see is people try to use the ends to justify the means- the war has caused chaos therefore it cannot be justified. That is the argument that will be deployed. Fact is however, with the evidence put forward the President acted in a manner that he felt was appropriate and a manner that was supported by his staff and leaders from across the world.
Vincent's book pretty much knocks down that ludicrous idea quite easily.
His staff are co-conspirators to murder.
And most leaders didn't support and most people around the world did not.
The best example is France. They were quick to help us in Afghanistan, but were aghast at our haste to fight in Iraq wondering why we were so quick to want to go there. They wanted to wait just a few more months (if less than that) to exercise full diplomacy you know so to avoid armed conflict. But Bush didn't want that.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree with France's position and I would not have gone to war.However the Presidency must be free to continue to act decisively in emergency.
This was an emergency in the eyes of the Intelligence Staff- the President did not act wrongly, perhaps he was a little hasty but he did not break the law.
Again like I stated, you have (and there is nothing wrong with it -- its rational) many preconceived notions of the Presidency and that time period. You couldn't imagine Bush would act criminally.
Disspell those notions and look objectively at the situation. It isn't like I'd like to see a President become a criminal and prosecuted.
If you read the book and still possess the same idea, then we'll talk okay.
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I agree with France's position and I would not have gone to war.However the Presidency must be free to continue to act decisively in emergency.
This was an emergency in the eyes of the Intelligence Staff- the President did not act wrongly, perhaps he was a little hasty but he did not break the law.
It's not that simple, though. The President has the authority to send military personnel on missions as he or she sees fit. However, the question here is if he was complicit in using faulty intelligence to further his own agenda. One thing that can not be argued is that a number of his "cronies", as the thread starter called them, have financially benefitted from this war.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
It's not that simple, though. The President has the authority to send military personnel on missions as he or she sees fit. However, the question here is if he was complicit in using faulty intelligence to further his own agenda. One thing that can not be argued is that a number of his "cronies", as the thread starter called them, have financially benefitted from this war.
Vincent Bugliosi isn't some fringe conspiracy theorist. He is a very well respect and credible lawyer and probably one of the best of the 20th century.
Originally posted by Ace of Knaves
Bush didn't declare war without congress.
But I've now seen that Congress was just as duped as the American soldiers and Americans themselves.
Originally posted by BigRed
Congress essentially did something they weren't supposed to do but have done it since WW2 many times: passed the buck to the President on authorization of war.But I've now seen that Congress was just as duped as the American soldiers and Americans themselves.
And President himself.
Infact, I am just going to say it.
This thread is nonsense, mistakes were made and people paid terribly for those mistakes. However the popular consensus is to put all the blame on one man- Bush.
Fact is, Congress agreed to the War as did most of the American Nation.
BigRed's argument is either that Bush didn't have enough information to warrant a war or he fabricated the information. Doing either means he failed in his duty.
If he failed in his duty then so did Congress and so did the American people. They did not demand more evidence or say the evidence given wasn't valid. They said to the President. OK!
All of the United States then, shares the blood of Iraq.
(atleast, that is how it would play out if BigRed got his silly wish and the President went on trial)
Not a thing will come of this, on matter your opinion. Bush won't stand trial and he probably shouldn't.
I think the man has been something of a spectacular failure but I do believe he did what he thought was right at the time and that we likely have more important things to do then to waste time trying to charge an ex president with murder while the country crumbles economically.
Obama has pretty much flat out said that this won't happen.