Accountability for Iraq War: Indict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld

Hi YJ, In a perfect world these actions should of never happened to start with, or if they did be prosecuted active. Unfortunately we live with what we have. In time of conflict all actions start with and end with the Commander in Chief, "the President". He started, the Iraq aspect, on at best questionable intelligence, at worst an out right lie. He, IMHO, LIED not only to the people, but to those in the Armed Services of this country of which HE is accountable for. He by his owns actions and inactions set the mentality of the war by not actively prosecuting wanton acts of murder and torture, not just of lower ranking personnel but right up the chain of command. I admit that I have not keep on the reports of these wars, but I seen what this war was going to become - FUBAR. I am enormously glad that this "logs" have made their way into the light and to the public. Yes what the solider did was wrong, but what he did was of a greater good.There is a saying: "All evil needs to succeed, is for good men to stand by and do nothing>" Two good men have done something, I can only hope that something good comes of this.

Indictment of Bush,Rumsfled(clown of Bush circus),Dick Cheney(Coward) and running dog of U.S.imperialists,Tony Blair, all  war criminals, tops the list of impossibles.The myth of supremacy of the law is shatterred,International law has been trampled upon and lies and deception have once again emerged victorious,courtsey controlled media.

Whatever may be form of a government,ruling elite has never been accountable to any one.Let us live with and accept the fact that 'might is right',United Nations was created to endorse this law,the only law which has never been voilated by the strong.

They will not be indicted. People have been calling for it since he was still in office.

We live in a mob-culture country. We live in a vigilante justice country. Like it or not. It permeates from every aspect of our culture. No majority and no one with enough gait would support this. Hell, last time I went to an Astros game Bush was there, and he got an ovation from some people. Its astounding and confounding.

We also live in a "microwave nation." We have the attention span, and sometimes seemingly the intellect, of a toddler. Its sad and its a travesty. No one remembers. Bush used to get eviscerated constantly, now hes viewed as a "damned if you do, screwed if you dont" president. He was possibly just a puppet.

I just frankly dont see it happening. At the very least it wont be initiated stateside. 

IMHO these anti-christ assholes almost succeeded in not only the murder of tens of thousands of innocent people in Iraq, they actually, almost single-handedly, destroyed the entire modern worlds and America's global financial system. They ignored the the worlds global warming initiatives and create a political climate for the rise of extreme right wing and religious zealots. Corrupted media and misinformed or disinformed the public on these and many other national issues. Caused the alienation of South America and Asian Nations. Subjugated and corrupted United Nations efforts. 1

Idealism represents a perfection of form. The reality is that idealism must be executed to have any real formative value, and the results are always governed by the fallibility of man. Removing Saddam and his family, breaking their despotic hold over the Iraqi people was a good. It also opened the door to the many thousands of family members of his tortured and murdered victims to seek "pay-back". And it opened the door for the Religious sects and ethnicity that suffered as a group to seek "pay-back". These responses can be blamed on the Americans by the idealist. They can even ideally blame and demonize the persons of Bush, Chaney and Rumsfeld for "allowing" it to happen. However, none of these events took place in a vacuum. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Saudi-Arabia directly or indirectly, worked to obstruct a successful transition from despotism towards democratic rule and fed the flames of "pay-back". Not forgetting al-Qaeda and their unnecessary contribution to the violence. Saddam kept a firm and violently suppressive hand on the exchange of ideas.  Removing that suppression of ideas created it's own negative response. As did the wholesale loss of political and economic power by the Ba'ath Party. BUT. Only the idealist will limit their focus on the negative and BLAME. They never give credit for the greater good that is the primary goal of democratic governance, to those they blame for the negative aspects which mars the perfection of their idealism. Let's not forget the political value of keeping the negative aspects of  'Iraqi regime change' front and center during an election with dwindling Democrat support from the electorate. 'Blame Bush', is the mantra we have heard over and over for the last two years under the Democrats, and their refusal to accept their complicity as House Rep's and Senators supporting Iraqi regime change, or WMD, or oil, or whatever.

"thirty-aught-six" (not verified) at 12:52 on October 23rd, 2010 "Removing that suppression of ideas created it's own negative response"

Overall I would say an excellent counter view to "demonizing the persons of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld ".

Here's the one thought that you may have overlooked;

After many, many years ( hundreds, maybe thousands of years actually ) of political, cultural, ethnic, and religious evolution and influences in the middle east, Iraq came to "BALANCE."

All of these political, economic, religious, ethnic, cultural, regional influences and variables coalesing under a leader like Saddam Hussein. Whether we in our own democratic idealistic evolution saw him as a dictator, tyrant, or butcher, it may have been the only type of leader that could gel all these opposing factors, keeping them in simultaneous balance in modern Iraq. We all can see what happened when that balance was removed.

Your contention of idealism playing out is accurate but somewhat skewed in referencing these inept, and what some would consider satanic, unclutured, group of Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. There idealistic approach to solving the centuries old problems in modern Iraq. The death and destruction, conflict, and political divide it caused and still exist to this day by removing that 'balance factor'. The hundreds of billions of U.S. dollars spent and wasted. The thousands of American soldiers and 10's of thousands of dead and brutally slaughtered innocent Iraqis, all because of these specific American leaders idealism in a land where our democrat princples and idealism don't fit the mold. The political factors or many other cultural influences there.

You apparently suggest it was good to remove that balance of Saddam Hussein_because of some apparently idealistic democrat american ideology of good vs bad leader. But in the end, who really f'd up and is the the bad decision maker/s in this idealistic political idealism play ? Who lied, cheated, and deceived the people with false idealistic political idea's and agendas ? Idealism may need to playout to be realized, but who decides who's idealism we follow ?

No one is suggesting this was somehow a republican vs democrat debate in todays current
election process or environment. "Blame Bush" comes from many different factors, this being only one of them.

"thirty-aught-six"..

Balance could actually be interpreted as suppression and oppression in some governments today. You assume democratic principles can apply in any government political situation. I respectfully must disagree. The depth of understanding required in solving or establishing the balance the Iraqi political situation will require, may actually lead back to the sort of government and leadership it had previously. Time will tell how accurate that maybe. The situation in Iraq today is a far cry from anything we in America would consider as a stable democratic government.

As the Iraq political situation is playing out so far, I don't even see any progress in this current leadership stalemate. Or that in the future, Iran doesn't actually become the dominant influence in Iraq because this balance in Iraq has been lost in our "democratic idealistic effort" removing the previous Iraqi government, leadership, and political process. ( At an extremely high cost to America and the Iraq I might add )

This is not based on some assumption that the Iraqi people can't govern themselves. Just that the political, ethnic, and cultural realities that evolved over hundreds of years require a specific form of government for that country at this time.

You can assume that our congress and senate bare responsiblities for the whole war initiative in that region. I believe may other more important factors of manipulation, control, disinformation, and lies by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld lead up to that final decision being made by our congress.

Than your personal recollection is at fault. As the Democrats were calling for regime change prior to Bush holding office. In truth regime change is a Clinton objective touted during his tenure and reflected in the Acts his government enacted. I don't assume the process of government. It is an actual process that requires debate with in the House and Senate and must pass with a majority. House vote: 296-133 in favor. Senate vote: 77-23 in favor. ---For the US military to invade Iraq.Clinton signed into law HR 4655, the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998." In a presidential statement, issued by the White House, Clinton said, "This Act makes clear that it is the sense of the Congress that the United States should support those elements of the Iraqi opposition that advocate a very different future for Iraq than the bitter reality of internal repression and external aggression that the current regime in Baghdad now offers."--- "Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region. The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life. My Administration has pursued, and will continue to pursue, these objectives through active application of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. The evidence is overwhelming that such changes will not happen under the current Iraq leadership. In the meantime, while the United States continues to look to the Security Council's efforts to keep the current regime's behavior in check, we look forward to new leadership in Iraq that has the support of the Iraqi people. The United States is providing support to opposition groups from all sectors of the Iraqi community that could lead to a popularly supported government."

"thirty-aught-six" as is stated in your last response..

"I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up."

History, I believe, has already answered that question; not to mention how the current situation is evolving there.

Also stated:

"Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else."

I agree with this statement somewhat, but like many other countries in that region, freedom and the desire for it doesn't always equate to a "democratic solution". Take for example almost any other country in the mideast today.

As for Clinton statements about Iraq, which were based mostly on what had happened prior under Bush Sr. involvement there_the actions of Bush Jr were based on somewhat different objectives and the so called specific intelligence of WMD. 1

A/ [If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.] William J. Clinton  B/ [One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.] William J. Clinton  C/ [Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.] Al Gore  D/ [He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.] Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser  E/ [Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.] Nancy Pelosi  F/ [Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.] Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State  G/ [We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.] Sen. Ted Kennedy  H/ [I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.] Sen. John Kerry  I/ [In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.] Sen. Hillary Clinton  J/[Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.] Sen. John Kerry

Amazing how inaccurate our intelligence was back then, wasn't it ? Even after we had already invaded Iraq under Bush Sr. That we could have been so mistaken about all these weapons that Saddam Hussein supposely had. After Bush Jr. invaded, they basically found none of these weapons systems. President Clinton as far as I remember, never went so far as intending to declare war against Iraq again. The rhetoric was more to keep Hussein under pressure not to destabilize that region any further. Bush Jr. and his Administration made use of whatever intel and other methods they needed to make a case that America had good reasons convincing the global community in accepting us going to war again with Iraq. It really was more that Saddam presented a "destabilizing factor" in that critical oil rich region of the world, than having any actual weapons of mass destruction. This "destabilization effect" was of great concern to us because it was causing a threat to our nation security in that region. Much of what the public was hearing back then was more for those reasons than any fact of Iraq having WMD. Thus this issue with Bush Jr, Cheney, Rumsfeld, being at the core of what was told to the public and international community at large, specifically caused this backlash; Also George Tenet, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and others in the Bush Administration were involved from Bush inner circle at that time. 1

Pleasure YJ. If your looking for more story lines and topics about Iraq to use here on this 'NowPublic' site, check out todays cover page on Al Jazeera link. G/L ! The coverage being more objective than America's media. 1

english.aljazeera.net/