On George W. Bush and War Criminality 2

1) There was no territorial gain.............2) There was no subjugation. Deposing the worst mass-murder since Pol Pot, dismantling his Republican Guard, and allowing for free and fair elections is subjugation only in the minds of people who hate George W. Bush (and who evidently don't know the difference between interference and subjugation).............3) A case could be made for self-defense. Is it a case that I personally would have made? No. I was against the toppling Hussein because I feared a possible civil war and the fact that we still needed him as a counterbalance to Iran. But I wasn't President.............4) I'm still waiting to hear the precise U.N. resolution which has approved of the sextupling of drone attacks in Northern Pakistan by President Obama and why, if in fact there isn't one, HE isn't a war criminal, too (the fact that there have been thousands of civilian casualties, etc.).............5) The U.N. is a rump organization comprised of, in no small measure, miscreant nations/dictatorships. To cite them as the sole determinant of what constitutes war criminality is something that I reject. I mean, really, where were they when Saddam was gassing the Kurds, and where are they now with all of the atrocities happening in Syria (Assad is making Gadaffi look like a damn piker)?............6) I'm assuming that, if in fact Mr. Bush ever WAS indicted for war crimes, the fellow would also get a fair trial (I mean, they gave one to Adolph Eichmann, right?). OR, is he already considered guilty by a bevy of marginal bloggers and a spate of ivory tower intellectuals? I'm curious.............7) Referencing what Bush did in 2003 (even assuming the most cynical of motivations) with what Hitler did in 1939 is an extremely discomforting comparison and I....Well, I'll just leave it at that.............8) And let's just assume that what Mr. Bush did WAS a war crime, is there not in this area of law a continuum, too? Just as you wouldn't compare a person convicted of vehicular homicide to John Wayne Gacy, you probably wouldn't compare Bush to Hitler, Pol Pot, Hussein, D'Aubuisson, Amin, the Hamids, etc., either. I mean, I certainly wouldn't.............9) Regime change in Iraq, as one of the stated objectives of American foreign policy, didn't originate with George Bush. It originated with Bill Clinton in 1998 and was also affirmed in Congress via the Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998 (this, in response to Saddam having kicked out the weapons inspectors). Clinton, not Bush.............10) The Authorization for the Use of Force Bill that passed both houses of Congress in 2002 had 23 whereas clauses justifying the war. Only TWO of them in any way dealt with WMD. Two.............11) The yellow cake and aluminum tubes arguments were never mentioned in either the U.S. Use of Force Bill OR the U.N. Council ultimatum 1441. And they weren't even part of the intelligence report that the Congress saw. They were only used to persuade the U.N. (yes, that in fact WAS a bad thing).............12) Every major intelligence agency in the world; the British, the French, the Russians, the Germans, the Israelis, the Jordanians, etc., thought that Iraq had WMD. Yes, they were wrong but they were ALL wrong.............13) If Bush was so gung-ho about going to war in Iraq, then why did he a) wait a full three months after the ultimatum (U.N. resolution 1441) expired before engaging and b) give Mr. Hussein an 11th hour ultimatum to "leave the country or face war". Hussein could have readily left for Russia and Aziz taken over and war would have been avoided.............14) Yes, the first Gulf War had a U.N. resolution authorizing force. But the only reason that it did was because China abstained, and the only reason that China abstained (as opposed to vetoing the measure, which is what they really wanted to do) was because they were feeling isolated after the Tiananmen Square massacre and didn't want to become even more isolated. Ergo, the first gulf war was almost a "war crime", too.............15) Congress was privy to the same intelligence that the White House was. This, via the N.I.E...............16) No evidence has ever been found of White Hose manipulation of the evidence. This from the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee (unanimous); " The Committee did not find any evidence that intelligence analysts changed their judgments as a result of political pressure, altered or produced intelligence products to conform with Administration policy, or that anyone even attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to do so. When asked whether analysts were pressured in any way to alter their assessments or make their judgments conform with Administration policies on Iraq’s WMD programs, not a single analyst answered “yes.”............17) And, this, from the bipartisan Silberman-Robb report of 2005; These (intelligence) errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments. 18) In spite of all this, I still think that the Iraq War was a stupid and shortsighted enterprise that could have and should have been avoided.............19) P.S. Just to be fair here, while it's clear that there wasn't any manipulation of the evidence/Congress, a case COULD in fact be made that the administration manipulated the public. There was a lot of doubt in that N.I.E. and none of it was forwarded to the public or the media. Now, whether this fact constitutes a war crime or not, that I might be willing to concede (though, yes, it would also incriminate the Congress).