Vet Accusses Bush/Cheney of War Crimes

[rjd970]

Here's a snopes verified list of quotes dating back to 1998 that show a clear acceptance of the fact that Saddam had and was further developing WMD. It was the working hypothesis of the Clinton admin and Congress when W entered the WH.

snopes.com: Weapons of Mass Destruction Quotes

I do not post this to justify misleading the public or Congress. I do post it to show that W & Co. used what was commonly believed to be fact to support their decision.

Also of note is 297 Yes votes in House and 77 in Senate for war powers authorization vis-a-vis Iraq. Hard to believe big majorities were just duped given the working believe that WMD existed.

By 2003, after a decade of sanctions, I seriously doubt the threat was there, even if he did have WMDs. I still think it is crap that WMDs were used as an excuse in the first place. How many other Islamic countries have WMDs, or other countries that are against our interests? This was about a neocon agenda in the region, and 911 and WMD fear mongering was used to accomplish it.

And I wouldn't be surprised either about the 297/77 votes considering the intel that was allowed to be released by the white house, and the other that was kept locked away. I'm surprised it wasn't 374/0 with what was released.

 

[Vol Main]

Ironic how you reach these quick, firm judgements about events and people (e.g. me) yet argue we need to dig in and find the facts.

I am not defending one crime with another - I am arguing why I do not think a crime was committed and as evidence showing that said actions occur repeatedly.

On the repeated claim that I do not care you have that wrong as well. I simply disagree with your assessment that not only did W & Co. commit war crimes but also that it is clear they are guilty (as you have claimed) even though no trial was conducted and you are by definition woefully short on all the evidence. In short, you've convicted them in your mind and only seek evidence to support that conviction - hardly in the spirit of the Constitution.

So to be clear: Not agreeing with you =/= not caring but thanks for implying things about my character anyway.

I was quite vocal about the Benghazi debacle from the start. IIRC you were not so. I can assume therefore you simply don't care about Ambassador Stevens death?

My judgments about you and other people are always open. I only make them to save time wasted in meaningless quibbles, which is why I put you on ignore for so long. You continually subtracted from discussion of difficult issues with petty quibbles and diversions instead of contributing to them. But you seldom contradict my appraisal of you, as a vanity working your own self image instead of salient facts about what is right and wrong and important. You are going to cling to your self image as a really smart and great guy, but your vanity means nothing to me. You are obviously without knowledge of information that I have, yet you claim to know how much information I have. You just say that to avoid facing the foolish argument that you already made, defending one person's crime by saying other people did it.

You keep using the words war crimes to characterize my position. I am not going to continually repeat myself for you that my concerns involve federal felonies of fraud and abuse of power. I don't think you are too stupid to understand that. I think you just don't care, because that is the kind of person you are. If you do not remember my posts on Benghazi, then it might be because you don't want to remember them. They were there; they were very strongly worded, and I think you did read them. Get this straight; this thread is not about Benghazi... or any other issue that you might use to divert focus away from it.

 

[BearCat204]

Is there anyone that doesn't think it was a colossal blunder?

A blunder? Yes......a war crime? Absolutely not. Actually not anymore criminal than most of the history of the US and how we have gone to and how we have performed during war.

 

[BearCat204]

I clearly said that the soldiers did uphold their oaths by following orders, so please do not confuse this discussion with that type of oversight in your replies.

The President does not swear an oath to follow the orders of the President; he swears this oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Did he faithfully observe our laws and the Constitutionally established processes of our government, or did he and others in his Administration willfully subvert and violate them? To determine if crimes were committed, these are the questions one must ask and answer.

I should have put some seperation between my two points...........most logical people knew what I was referring to.

 

[Vol Main]

I should have put some seperation between my two points...........most logical people knew what I was referring to.

If you want to continue this discussion with me, then don't wrongly state something and then blame me for replying to what you write. Never mind. Go ahead and post whatever wrong and illogical things you want and then preach logic, I won't be reading any of it.

 

[BearCat204]

If you want to continue this discussion with me, then don't wrongly state something and then blame me for replying to what you write. Never mind. Go ahead and post whatever wrong and illogical things you want and then preach logic, I won't be reading any of it.

What did I post that was wrong? See, the problem most have with you is that you cant have a civil argument without losing your ****.

 

[GAVol]

My judgments about you and other people are always open. I only make them to save time wasted in meaningless quibbles, which is why I put you on ignore for so long.

I'm sorry, but if you put a guy like bham on ignore, you've got the sensibilities of an 8 year old girl. Dude is about as cordial as they come in messageboard land.

 

[n_huffhines]

Whether or not he is a war criminal, it's troubling to me how few people believe this. I am disappointed in the anti-war movement.

 

[n_huffhines]

The Iraq WMD mystery is one of the most bizarre episodes I can ever remember. It was likely a combination of cherry picked intelligence, an elaborate hoax by Saddam to show faux strength, weapons hastily moved to Syria and flat out exaggerations. Whatever the case, a lot of people seemed to be fooled.

In the One Percent Doctrine the author quoted an analyst who reported to Cheney that he could find no link between Hussein and 9/11 and Cheney responded, "Wrong answer".

 

[Vol Main]

Wrong. I implore people to read Ron Suskind and Bob Woodward for the real story on how all this went down. Cheney went as far as to have analysts at the CIA fired for including intel in daily briefs that didn't show what he wanted it to. The intel was cherry picked, plain and simple. If anything, that is why people "believed it to be true". The list is long of people that were fired, or quit, because they didn't want to be a part of it.

The OSP in the Pentagon definitely cherry picked intel to create false briefs and piped them straight into the White House through V.P. Cheney's office. But they did far worse than that. They paid money for people to fraudulently fabricate false intelligence.

 

[Vol Main]

I'm sorry, but if you put a guy like bham on ignore, you've got the sensibilities of an 8 year old girl. Dude is about as cordial as they come in messageboard land.

Apology accepted. When I want to waste my time, I go to one of the other boards. Here, we deal with important real world issues, which are often complex and difficult. I take them seriously; I work them hard with good faith, and there is simply not enough time to waste by continually responding to deliberate bull****, however great and friendly the writer might be otherwise. If you think that is the sensibility of an eight year old girl, then you are very mistaken. That is the sensibility of a responsible adult. Now, if you were paying me to read and write here, that would be different, but you are not. So I will write what I choose to write, and I will select the kind of writing I read.

 

[lawgator1]

Whether or not he is a war criminal, it's troubling to me how few people believe this. I am disappointed in the anti-war movement.

Simple fatigue, really.

 

[TheDeeble]

Simple fatigue, really.

Amazing how that anti-war movement disappeared even though Obama has continued or expanded many of Bush's policies.

 

[Vol Main]

Simple fatigue, really.

That is more true than you might realize.

 

[lawgator1]

Amazing how that anti-war movement disappeared even though Obama has continued or expanded many of Bush's policies.

Again, I think it is fatigue. Although one would have to say that even at the beginning stages the anti-war protestors in the US were a pretty small and disorganized group. Never really got any traction, that I can recall.

 

[BeecherVol]

I'm sorry, but if you put a guy like bham on ignore, you've got the sensibilities of an 8 year old girl. Dude is about as cordial as they come in messageboard land.

I'll second that.

Q the kid putting his fingers in his ears.

 

[utvolpj]

I'm sorry, but if you put a guy like bham on ignore, you've got the sensibilities of an 8 year old girl. Dude is about as cordial as they come in messageboard land.

I don't know. He got upset over those Pringles

 

[Vols520]

Wrong. I implore people to read Ron Suskind and Bob Woodward for the real story on how all this went down. Cheney went as far as to have analysts at the CIA fired for including intel in daily briefs that didn't show what he wanted it to. The intel was cherry picked, plain and simple. If anything, that is why people "believed it to be true". The list is long of people that were fired, or quit, because they didn't want to be a part of it.

Interesting if true. Not saying I doubt you but who knows what is fact or fiction.

Either way it clearly wasn't the right thing to do looking back on the war.

I can see what bush was trying to accomplish in stability and promoting democracy but I don't know that will ever work. We can't enforce our way of life on others.

 

[PKT_VOL]

The Iraq WMD mystery is one of the most bizarre episodes I can ever remember. It was likely a combination of cherry picked intelligence, an elaborate hoax by Saddam to show faux strength, weapons hastily moved to Syria and flat out exaggerations. Whatever the case, a lot of people seemed to be fooled.

Best post in the thread. I feel like it was a combination of all those facts.

The real intriguing part is what happened to those weapons which were moves to Syria? Are they the same ones being used now?

 

[utvolpj]

Best post in the thread. I feel like it was a combination of all those facts.

The real intriguing part is what happened to those weapons which were moves to Syria? Are they the same ones being used now?

IMO those are from Libya

 

[Gramps]

I'm sorry, but if you put a guy like bham on ignore, you've got the sensibilities of an 8 year old girl. Dude is about as cordial as they come in messageboard land.

Apology accepted. When I want to waste my time, I go to one of the other boards. Here, we deal with important issues, which are often complex and difficult. I take them seriously; I work them hard with good faith, and there is simply not enough time to waste responding to deliberate bull****, however great and friendly the writer might be otherwise. If you think that is the sensibility of an eight year old girl, then you are very mistaken. That is the sensibility of a mature adult. Now, if you were paying me to read and write here, that would be different, but you are not. So I will write what I choose to write, and I will select the kind of writing I read.

I agree with GAVol, volinBham is one of the best and respected posters on VN. I have been on VN for several years and can assure you if VN had more people like volinBham, it would be a better forum. He is a very well informed cordial poster.

 

[lawgator1]

Someone put bham on ignore? That is indeed surprising, and I only agree with him about 0.002 % of the time. He is rarely antagonistic.

Although he has a lock on the being wrong market.

 

[Vol Main]

I'll second that.

Q the kid putting his fingers in his ears.

You are free to read all of the deliberate bull**** you want to read. There is an endless supply of bad writing, enough for you to spend all of your time reading it and replying to it. Frankly, I do not want to waste my time that way. You make your decisions for yourself, and I'll make mine.

BTW, I never put someone on ignore for simply disagreeing with me. As a matter of fact, many good discussions involve disagreement. But good discussions do not involve deliberate diversions into nonsense. If you want people to read your good posts, then you shouldn't get yourself on ignore by posting crap like the above. jmo

 

[GAVol]

In the One Percent Doctrine the author quoted an analyst who reported to Cheney that he could find no link between Hussein and 9/11 and Cheney responded, "Wrong answer".

I have no doubt there was some of that going on. The "get them before they get us" doctrine was alive and well. But, at the same time, something clearly happened with WMDs at some point. I just don't buy that Saddam Hussein was such a good poker player that he tricked the world and bluffed his way into getting himself deposed.

 

[lawgator1]

I have no doubt there was some of that going on. The "get them before they get us" doctrine was alive and well. But, at the same time, something clearly happened with WMDs at some point. I just don't buy that Saddam Hussein was such a good poker player that he tricked the world and bluffed his way into getting himself deposed.

I think you are not acknowledging the obvious point here, which is that when we invaded, Iraq had about as much chance of "getting us" as Luxembourg.