Accountability for War

[CaptnKirk]

From Ney York times

Remember the MOBILE BIO-LABS ? - text from linked article:


Or look at the affair of the infamous "germ warfare" trailers. I don't know whether those trailers were intended to produce bioweapons or merely to inflate balloons, as the Iraqis claim ? a claim supported by a number of outside experts. (According to the newspaper The Observer, Britain sold Iraq a similar system back in 1987.) What is clear is that an initial report concluding that they were weapons labs was, as one analyst told The Times, "a rushed job and looks political." President Bush had no business declaring "we have found the weapons of mass destruction."

Doesn't this state that England made them and sold them to Iraq in 1987 ? and knew what they were ?

Almost the same statement from L.A. Times about them (Same source in London)

On Sunday, the London Observer, citing British intelligence sources, reported that it "is increasingly likely that the units were designed to be used for hydrogen production to fill artillery balloons, part of a system originally sold to Saddam by Britain in 1987."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ack, registration.


Sounds like the Brits were blowing up balloons to me.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Ack, registration.


Sounds like the Brits were blowing up balloons to me.

Yes. And Bush was supplying them with the "gas."

 

[UltraQuiet]

From the link above:


June 10, 2003
Who's Accountable?
By PAUL KRUGMAN


The Bush and Blair administrations are trying to silence critics ? many of them current or former intelligence analysts ? who say that they exaggerated the threat from Iraq. Last week a Blair official accused Britain's intelligence agencies of plotting against the government. (Tony Blair's government has since apologized for January's "dodgy dossier.") In this country, Colin Powell has declared that questions about the justification for war are "outrageous."

Yet dishonest salesmanship has been the hallmark of the Bush administration's approach to domestic policy. And it has become increasingly clear that the selling of the war with Iraq was no different.

For example, look at the way the administration rhetorically linked Saddam to Sept. 11. As The Associated Press put it: "The implication from Bush on down was that Saddam supported Osama bin Laden's network. Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks frequently were mentioned in the same sentence, even though officials have no good evidence of such a link." Not only was there no good evidence: according to The New York Times, captured leaders of Al Qaeda explicitly told the C.I.A. that they had not been working with Saddam.

Or look at the affair of the infamous "germ warfare" trailers. I don't know whether those trailers were intended to produce bioweapons or merely to inflate balloons, as the Iraqis claim ? a claim supported by a number of outside experts. (According to the newspaper The Observer, Britain sold Iraq a similar system back in 1987.) What is clear is that an initial report concluding that they were weapons labs was, as one analyst told The Times, "a rushed job and looks political." President Bush had no business declaring "we have found the weapons of mass destruction."

We can guess how Mr. Bush came to make that statement. The first teams of analysts told administration officials what they wanted to hear, doubts were brushed aside, and officials then made public pronouncements greatly overstating even what the analysts had said.

A similar process of cherry-picking, of choosing and exaggerating intelligence that suited the administration's preconceptions, unfolded over the issue of W.M.D.'s before the war. Most intelligence professionals believed that Saddam had some biological and chemical weapons, but they did not believe that these posed any imminent threat. According to the newspaper The Independent, a March 2002 report by Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee found no evidence that Saddam posed a significantly greater threat than in 1991. But such conclusions weren't acceptable.

Last fall former U.S. intelligence officials began warning that official pronouncements were being based on "cooked intelligence." British intelligence officials were so concerned that, The Independent reports, they kept detailed records of the process. "A smoking gun may well exist over W.M.D., but it may not be to the government's liking," a source said.

But the Bush administration found scraps of intelligence suiting its agenda, and officials began making strong pronouncements. "Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons ? the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have," Mr. Bush said on Feb. 8. On March 16 Dick Cheney declared, "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

It's now two months since Baghdad fell ? and according to The A.P., military units searching for W.M.D.'s have run out of places to look.

One last point: the Bush administration's determination to see what it wanted to see led not just to a gross exaggeration of the threat Iraq posed, but to a severe underestimation of the problems of postwar occupation. When Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, warned that occupying Iraq might require hundreds of thousands of soldiers for an extended period, Paul Wolfowitz said he was "wildly off the mark" ? and the secretary of the Army may have been fired for backing up the general. Now a force of 150,000 is stretched thin, facing increasingly frequent guerrilla attacks, and a senior officer told The Washington Post that it might be two years before an Iraqi government takes over. The Independent reports that British military chiefs are resisting calls to send more forces, fearing being "sucked into a quagmire."

I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war.

 

[Vic]

Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Wars can be painted with any brush you want. Either way lots of people die, lots of craters are left, and nothing moves forward. It can, however, make it easier for "ideas" to move forward. But this takes a lot of time. Wars are difficult to truly judge until the ideas that drove them move forward. Its too early to tell if this has done any good for the middle east, 5-10 years from now I think it will show that some good ideas will move forward out of it.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

Hitler got more accomplished than Bush I too. I am shocked that you are equating Bush with Hitler.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

It was based on a lie. Besides, Americans are still dying on a regular basis, Iraq is still in a shambles, and who is going to trust Bush/US now? Where's the "good"?

 

[MonkeyK]

Bush Sr. acted to the extent of the UN madate. He accomplished exactly as much as he should have.

 

[Czar]

nm 🙂

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I like Krugman.

I'll tell you what's outrageous. It's not the fact that people are criticizing the administration; it's the fact that nobody is being held accountable for misleading the nation into war.

We were not mislead . . . the minority which considered war unwarranted in February morphed into a FOX-watching, CNN-glazed super majority in March. The evidence has not changed since last summer. Saddam did not do anything particularly bad in the last year (at least not compared to the 80s-early 90s).

Our great nation is a representative democracy but it's resembled a borderline fascist state for quite some time. Despite the uncertainty about WMD, links to 9/11, links to Al Qaeda, the cost of war, and the cost of peace we spent most of April celebrating our victory. We are indeed the modern Roman Empire . . . as long as we have conquests to celebrate the people are content.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

Don't know their families but I doubt they'll tell you that the servicemen died for nothing.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

Don't know their families but I doubt they'll tell you that the servicemen died for nothing.

Nor would those and the families of those who served in Vietnam. It's a hard thing to face when you've been exploited by the country you have sworn to protect.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

Don't know their families but I doubt they'll tell you that the servicemen died for nothing.

They died for their duty. They did their job with honor. Those who were behind their orders those haven't an understanding of that concept.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

Hitler got more accomplished than Bush I too. I am shocked that you are equating Bush with Hitler.

Excuse me? 😕 :| Did I equate Bush with Hitler? Did Bush (Jr. or Sr.) round up millions of people in concentration camps and have them executed in genocidal delight? No. If anyone has equated Bush with Hitler, it is you. Don't put words in my mouth, troll.

I was against this war when it was first starting. I was concerned that it would upset the tenuous geopolitical climate. Fortunately, that did not happen, and in fact it appears that it has strengthened the political stability in the area and around the world. Did Bush lie? Looks like he did. That's bothers me a bit, but not very much because I assumed all along that he was lying. The blatant tone of the misleading sales pitch was pretty obvious, and I can only assume that you knew that he was lying then as well (or suspected it). That you pretend to be surprised by it now only implicates you as a liar as well.
What bothers me more is that all this WMD propaganda continues to be a destructive distraction, more so now than before the war. Would you mind not joining the idiot lynch mob? There still remains many more important questions... like where is Saddam?

My heart goes to the families of the soldiers who have died in the war and continue to die, but they signed their papers, they knew what they were getting themselves into when they enlisted, and unfortunately they have been called upon to pay that ultimate price. Were they "exploited by the country (they had) sworn to protect"? Why don't you ask their families? Perhaps they shouldn't have joined up then, eh?

All I see here is more destructive bipartisan politics. And to take quotes and articles from the discredited and highly partisan New York Times (or its sister paper owned by the same media conglomerate - The LA Times) and call them proof... that's just assinine.

edited: minor typos

 

[ConclamoLudus]

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

Don't know their families but I doubt they'll tell you that the servicemen died for nothing.

Nor would those and the families of those who served in Vietnam. It's a hard thing to face when you've been exploited by the country you have sworn to protect.

What about those servicemen and their families that don't feel they've been exploited? Are they just stupid? Or are they evil like Bush? I'm not sure where the exploitation is coming from. I also just don't see the Vietnam comparison. I would think that the worst thing to face would be that people are saying they've been exploited when they might feel proud.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: Gonad the Barbarian

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus

Originally posted by: phillyTIM

Originally posted by: Vic
Did "the war" end up being a bad thing? Seems to me that we got a lot more accomplished than when it was Bush Sr.'s turn.

the war, its becoming more clear, has been based on fudged/falsified "evidence"

9 servicemen have died because of iraqi strikes in the past 14 days.

now you ask those 9 families of the dead servicement how much this war has accomplished

Don't know their families but I doubt they'll tell you that the servicemen died for nothing.

Nor would those and the families of those who served in Vietnam. It's a hard thing to face when you've been exploited by the country you have sworn to protect.

What about those servicemen and their families that don't feel they've been exploited? Are they just stupid? Or are they evil like Bush? I'm not sure where the exploitation is coming from. I also just don't see the Vietnam comparison. I would think that the worst thing to face would be that people are saying they've been exploited when they might feel proud.

Some of them may genuinely feel proud, not they wouldn't have a right to, they did do their duty and upheld their oaths like good soldiers should. But like you said, being exploited in doing so is a horrible thing to face. If they refuse to face that, I wouldn't consider them stupid or evil, I'd think they were coping the best they could - with denial. And I'm making the Vietnam reference because both it and Iraq were, IMO, at best unnecessary wars, and at worst, fraudulent wars.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Vic

My heart goes to the families of the soldiers who have died in the war and continue to die, but they signed their papers, they knew what they were getting themselves into when they enlisted, and unfortunately they have been called upon to pay that ultimate price. Were they "exploited by the country (they had) sworn to protect"? Why don't you ask their families? Perhaps they shouldn't have joined up then, eh?

They signed papers trusting that if they were called on to fight it would be for good reason. Not because the administration lied to and misled the public into supporting a bogus war.

There is the exploitation.

simple.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: flavio
They signed papers trusting that if they were called on to fight it would be for good reason. Not because the administration lied to and misled the public into supporting a bogus war.

There is the exploitation.

simple.

You apparently don't know much about the military. They signed on saying that they would do whatever their superiors ordered them do, unless those orders were explicitly not allowed by military law. And there is no "the war must be for a good reason" clause. If their Commander-in-Chief (the President) and the Congress tell them to go, then they go - shooting first and asking questions later. That is what they signed on for.
Do you actually know any people in the military? I do. They don't feel exploited. Quite the contrary. They have been and remain extremely supportive of this little war.
And that people are comparing this to Vietnam is disgusting. That "police action" lasted almost 20 years, ended in defeat, and cost more than 57,000 American dead. This "war" was a 6-week walk in the park by comparision.
There will be no "Iraq-gate" against GW. Much as I dislike him, this is a pathetic and comtemptible little scheme I see the Democrats planning. You won't win the Presidency this way - the people will retaliate and fry you alive. Give it up. Consider that helpful advice, as I'd like to see the Dems win back a couple of seats next year (just to balance the power a little).

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: flavio
They signed papers trusting that if they were called on to fight it would be for good reason. Not because the administration lied to and misled the public into supporting a bogus war.

There is the exploitation.

simple.

You apparently don't know much about the military. They signed on saying that they would do whatever their superiors ordered them do, unless those orders were explicitly not allowed by military law. And there is no "the war must be for a good reason" clause. If their Commander-in-Chief (the President) and the Congress tell them to go, then they go - shooting first and asking questions later. That is what they signed on for.
Do you actually know any people in the military? I do. They don't feel exploited. Quite the contrary. They have been and remain extremely supportive of this little war.
And that people are comparing this to Vietnam is disgusting. That "police action" lasted almost 20 years, ended in defeat, and cost more than 57,000 American dead. This "war" was a 6-week walk in the park by comparision.
There will be no "Iraq-gate" against GW. Much as I dislike him, this is a pathetic and comtemptible little scheme I see the Democrats planning. You won't win the Presidency this way - the people will retaliate and fry you alive. Give it up. Consider that helpful advice, as I'd like to see the Dems win back a couple of seats next year (just to balance the power a little).

You're missing the point again. I mentioned "trust" in my post not a "for good reason clause".

They were sent into Iraq because supposedly they were protecting their country from an "imminent threat" which turned out to be a big lie. They signed on to protect their country not to be used to kill thousands of people for bogus reasons. They should be able to trust that the reasons they are fighting for are true and justified. If you don't see the exploitation there you are blind.

Much as I dislike him, this is a pathetic and comtemptible little scheme I see the Democrats planning.

No, the contemptible scheme is what ShrubCo planned and implemented. If he lied and misled the public to garner support for this war then he deserves to pay a hefty price for that deception.

 

[ConclamoLudus]

I'll be sure to tell my buddies when they come back from Iraq that they aren't in fact proud, that they are just in denial. I'll be sure to let them know, because they can't make up their own minds, that the sense of pride they have is really their denial oozing out of their confused/exploited brains. Poor poor creatures, if they only knew. 😛

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: ConclamoLudus
I'll be sure to tell my buddies when they come back from Iraq that they aren't in fact proud, that they are just in denial. I'll be sure to let them know, because they can't make up their own minds, that the sense of pride they have is really their denial oozing out of their confused/exploited brains. Poor poor creatures, if they only knew. 😛

Hey, the military by its very nature conditions people out of free will and individuality.

Originally posted by: Vic
And that people are comparing this to Vietnam is disgusting. That "police action" lasted almost 20 years, ended in defeat, and cost more than 57,000 American dead. This "war" was a 6-week walk in the park by comparision.

And how much time and how many lives will our 'police action' in Iraq cost? Calling this war a walk in the park at this stage in the game is foolish.

 

[phillyTIM]

*plays the violin during ConclamoLudus's so eloquent, patriotic speech*

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Every American serviceperson that performs their duties with utmost respect for human rights should be quite proud of their accomplishments. I do not believe anyone in this thread has implied serving in Iraq requires a sub-mean IQ or lack of personal integrity. But can you imagine how general's in the field and teams trained to secure WMD feel?

To liberate a captive people is certainly a moral good. To liberate them by any means necessary is not. To liberate but have no practical plan for providing a reasonable quality of life during occupation is immoral. Saddam was not going to leave unless he was forced to leave. The military option was the only viable method short of a coup . . . unfortunately, MANY Iraqis were quite happy with their life under Saddam.

The real question remains unanswered . . . why did we fight this war at this time? Clearly, it was not for the stated purpose of defending America from a tyrannt with WMD. The next question . . . are there any consequences for administrations that wage war under false pretenses? Are there consequences for our elected representatives of Congress that standby while the Executive claims powers beyond his Constitutional mandate?