Artful Dodger:

> The libearal mind in the US wants to pin the "War Criminal" charge on George Bush and
> when pressed for reasons, they cite a number of things Bush authorized that were
> criminal in the eyes of International Law or simply against US standards. And yet, when
> it's pointed out that Obama is doing EXACTY THE SAME THINGS, they look at you as if
> they don't understand the connection.

I think that ultimately the legal implications of the war in Iraq are a moot point. Was Iraq a threat, and if so, how? The Bush administration made two claims about Iraq. First, that it was a "terrorist state" that supported Al Qaida and presumably other terror networks. Second, Iraq possessed WMDs in quantities that were a direct threat not just to the US, but to the rest of the world.

On the first point, even before the war Bush was dismissed as being wrong because nobody could prove a link between the Baathist regime in Iraq and Al Qaida. The Baathist Party was a secular organization and Saddam Hussein had traditionally oppressed Shiite moslems because he saw them as a threat against his power. The link between Iraq and Al Qaida was never proven and to date it has not been proven conclusively.

On the second point, as is well known now, the intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities was for the most part manufactured and both before and after the war no WMD stockpiles were ever found in Iraq. In most cases what the military found were abandoned installations, run down laboratories and the like. The large stockpiles of WMDs claimed by the Bush administration were never found. That is an undeniable fact. No chemical, biological or nuclear weapons were found in Iraq before and after the invasion.

So we are left with a war in which the political motivations were never proven. At the same time between 400,000 and 1.5 million people have died, depending on whose statistical data one believes. The US military confirms about 380,000 killed, while other things like the Iraq Body Count project project deaths into the 1.5 million range.

The American government has never publicly admitted the number of casualties before the American public. Either they don't care, or are embarrassed by this.

Added to this, is the fact that the main economic beneficiaries of the war were closely linked to the president and the immediate cabinet:
- Haliburton (Dick Cheney)
- Chevron (Condoleeza Rice)
- Exxon (Lee Raymond, the largest contributor to both of George W. Bush's campaigns)
- G.D. Searle (the largest supplier of biotechnology to Iraq, at the time run by Donald Rumsfeld)
- The Carlisle Group (where the Bush family and the Bin Laden family invested their funda privately, this company benefitted greatly by investing in oil and defense during the war)
- Arbusto Energy (a drilling and oil service company belonging tot he Bush family)

There are also defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics. They profitted greatly from the war and gave massive donations to both Bush campaigns.

So, weighing the things that went on, one has to wonder if the war was motivated by fear or greed. Regardless of that, a lot of politicians voted for the war because they did not want to seem unpatriotic. Not so with Barrack Obama:

"Barack Obama ... was not a senator at the time of the voting of the Iraq War Resolution, but has repeatedly voiced his disapproval of it both before and during his senatorship, saying at an anti war rally in Chicago on October 2, 2002: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars." He also spoke of the "undetermined length... undetermined cost, [and] undetermined consequences" which even a successful war would bring."

Now, is Barrack Obama a cause of the current problems or is he merely trying to deal with all the situations left behind by the previous administration? The Bush administration left behind a series of problems that will not be solved in the 8 years that Obama will be in office, and Iraq is one of those problems.

Are George W. Bush and his cabinet a bunch of war criminals? Each person must make up their own mind. Considering the evidence and the actions of the Bush administration, I would say that he is. The cabinet was neither blind nor dumb. They knew what they were doing, and they did it callously and without regard for the human cost of the war. Everything else seems to me nothing but excuses.

Tuesday: Please do google and check. It is OK with me indeed.

I have no idea where you got the info that I hate you (whatever “us” is) or that am giving Clinton credit ot blaming him for making that decision (whatever “this decision” is). My posts on this subject have been, so far, the following:

1. Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

2. To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Tuesday: Care to elaborate on that? Are you saying that Clinton had no responsibility as the US leader and the commander of US forces? Or do you intend to convey something else? Or anything at all? Have you ever thought about taking a communications class?

SL-Mark: To add some info on “the man”, the 1999 bombing of Yugoslavia was in clear violation of the United Nations Charter.

Tuesday: Well for a start,

"On October 10, 2002, Mrs Clinton voted to authorise then-president George W Bush to use military force against Iraq. In March the following year, Mr Bush gave the order to invade.

Iraq represented no imminent threat to the US or to any other country. The invasion was an unprovoked act of aggression. It violated United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, the UN Charter (Chapter VII, Article 39) and the Nuremberg Charter proscription of aggressive war (Article 6(a)). "

Or are you speaking about the man?

Tuesday: Yes, he's guilty too
But at least he admits to it!

(V):

> One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years
> was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested,
> imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another
> example of double standards!!

People in general forget small details of history that shed light on the nature of a president and why he was supported by the USA.

In the 1970s Anwar El Sadat was president of Egypt. Sadat managed to accomplish some things which were of great interest to the USA. First, he strengthened the Egyptian army, thereby getting rid of Soviet influence that had crept in during former president Nasser's regime. After Nasser's death, Sadat got rid of soviet equipment and advisors while at the same time strengthening the Egyptian army. This put him in a stronger political position to sign a peace treaty with Israel. This peace treaty was politically and strategically important to both the USA and Israel. That treaty got Sadat three things: Egypt was expelled from the Arab League, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and a fatwah (assassination) was called against him.

After Sadat was assassinated, there was a political vacuum in Egypt. A man had risen in rank and power in the military during the 1970s. That was vice-president General Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak promised to continue Egypt's peaceful policies towards Israel in exchange for economic and military support from Washington. Through the 1980s and into the present Mubarak proved to be a strong ally of the USA and a supporter of Israel. Over the years Egypt's military recieved more and more economic support from Washington. Today that support amounts to 1.8 billion USD and Egypt is the second largest recepient of military aid from the USA after Israel.

Besides supporting Israel, Mubarak also made Egypt a military ally of the USA during both wars in Iraq. As a full ally he provided equipment, personnel, land and air space, etc. He also cracked down on fundamentalist islamists who sought to drive him from power. While being called a dictator, Mubarak did everything right by Washington's standards. It is for this reason that his military receive, and will continue to receive, such strong economic support.

At this point Washington is trying to gauge how a new president will behave. Since the military still have all political and economic power, it is unlikely that things will change much in Egypt beyond just a new face in the presidency. Whoever is elected president will have to do things according to the dictates of the military, and Mubarak and his allies run the military. Washington will not tolerate any president who takes a belligerent stance towards Israel, or who allows fundamentalist Islamic groups to gain a foothold in the political landscape of Egypt.

Egyptians are torn between a desire for democracy, nationalism, Islamic religious fervor, a desire to support Palestinians, a desire to maintain good relations with the West, economic problems, and a latent military rule.

There will be those who will criticize President Obama for being ambiguous or apparently lacking resolution in supporting protesters. However, the stakes for both the USA and Israel are really big and the administration will not fully know who they are dealing with until after the elections in September. Will it be a Mubarak lackey, an extreme nationalist, a fundamentalist religious leader, a more moderate liberal? Anyone of them could rise to power depending on where the Egyptian military see what is most convenient for themselves.

Pedro Martínez:

> Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

Clinton was a lovah and not a fightah!

One could say that the support for the 'El Presidente' of Egypt over the last 30 years was an artificial peace. That anyone challenging his government was arrested, imprisoned or tortured. Isn't then the USA admins supporting the regime yet another example of double standards!!

.. which has cost Americans billions of dollars...

Tuesday: Those not afflicted with myopia would argue that Clinton is one of the world's leading war criminals!

Tuesday: That doesn't make sense.
A better way to put it would be “I don't understand that”, as that is not surprising at all and makes great sense.

Tuesday: Clinton was as much a peacemaker as he was a warmaker.

Now the shame is i think is Bobby Kennedy would have been a great president

Tuesday: Really, JFK? why?HE sent the Advisers and military into Vietnam..The bay of pigs could have been adverted, or won, but he choose otherwise. which led up to the missile crisis. but hey he was soooo good looking

But having said that, Clinton in my opinion was a very good president, his mistake I didn't like was NAFTA

Tuesday: and Bill Clinton was?or Joe Biden or JFK for that matter or w bush? Some one I know during Clinton's sex offender trials derided Paula Jones as trailer trash. I laughed and said and what is Bill? and check out his mother

Tuesday: She was, as have other right wingers in the ultimate aim of being a perfect 'Conservative'... it seems being a 'witch finder general' pays well!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc9BGSsU_ZU

Hosni Mubarak reminds me of me when I am told to do the dishes.The stronger the demand, the less likely I am to do it.

rod03801: I guess" idiocy" is a perspective thing, but I don't see the left mocking education, like some on the right do.

The Col: Again, that's fine. If the idiocy that comes from "the other side" is just as equally confronted.

OR if not confronted, then they shouldn't whine it works the other way too.

rod03801: Anti-intellectualism is a very dangerous path, and the Palin's of this world are the flag beares of it's renaissance upon the right wing stage.I frankly think it should be confronted whenever it appears, and it is in all it's heavenly glory when Palin opens her mouth

Tuesday: ??? Seems to me it IS plenty of people who do it?

Tuesday: Well I of course meant the people who would giggle about similar comments made about her, yet get a bit uppity about her making such comments.

rod03801: Truth depends on your perspective these days.Rarely does anyone break rank and disagree with someone on their side of the aisle.It has become far too predictable

The Col: I don't disagree. Most politicians do get it and give it. Some like to make it sound like it's one sided though.

rod03801: you betcha!
though I wonder what you consider " vicious "
she puts herself out there in the public forum, she gives just as much as she gets, and then some

Tuesday: Ahh. Yeah, gotcha. Of course.