Even Richard Clark Thinks Dubya and Cheney are War Criminals

[Nbadan]

The real problem: we never prosecuted the Bush crime syndicate for their Iraq war crimes so we have absolutely ZERO credibility or morality to base any foreign policy on.....

UN Could Prosecute Bush for War Crimes, Says Ex-U.S. Terror Czar

Former U.S. terror czar Richard Clarke (shown), who resigned in 2003, dropped two bombs statements about the Bush administration he served during a recent TV interview. First, he said, former President George W. Bush and then-Vice President Cheney probably perpetrated what amounts to “war crimes” surrounding the uncons utional attack on Iraq. While plenty of Americans on all sides of the political spectrum might be inclined to agree, Clarke went even further. He suggested the duo could be prosecuted by the dictator-dominated United Nations at the global body’s self-styled “International Criminal Court” (ICC) in The Hague.

Clarke was fairly blunt when asked whether he thought war-crimes charges should be brought against Bush, Cheney, and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. “I think things that they authorized probably fall within the area of war crimes,” the former U.S. terrorism czar for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said in an interview with Amy Goodman of the “progressive” Democracy Now TV program."

http://independentfilmnewsandmedia.c...s-terror-czar/

So the question becomes, why is the U.S. protecting war criminals and human rights abusers? If the former Bush Administration, and that includes more than just Dubya, Cheney and Rummy, thinks that their justification for the invasion and occupation of Iraq and the rendition, torture, rape, sodomy and murder of Iraqi citizens will stand up in court then they shouldn't fear being charged as war criminals. They should welcome the opportunity to prove to the world that they weren't....

[boutons_deux]

Clark was the main Clinton holdover that relayed the Clinton/Dem warnings about OBL that the Repugs ignored.

Cutting taxes for the wealthy (rammed through the Senate) and invading Iraq were the incoming Repug/neo-con obsessions, not National Security and clearly not OBL/terrorism.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well, I think the first question you have to ask yourself — first threshold is are you willing to use lethal force against a terrorist based on what you believe is evidence or intelligence that he is about to kill Americans? Is it just and fair and good policy to get them before they get us? I answered that question yes in the case of bin Laden. I was very confident that he was trying to kill large numbers of people, including large numbers of Americans and there was no way I could stop him short of a lethal attack. So having answer that question yes, then the question is, well, if you’re going to get him, who else can you get? Who else can you have that same justification for? I think what happened — and it happened largely under President Obama — was that the aperture got very, very broad. Not only were they targeting people whose names they knew, but they were targeting people whose names they didn’t know. They were targeting people in so-called signature strikes, when a place look like a terrorist camp. And they were able, after looking at that place for days on end, to satisfy themselves that it was a terrorist camp. Then they attacked that camp without knowing, frankly, the names of the people who were there. The result was, collateral damage. We don’t know how much. There are widely varying estimates of the number of innocent people who have been killed in each of these cases. But, we do know that innocent people were killed. As recently as the attack in Yemen at the end of last year that blew up a wedding. When you do things like that, you cause enemies for the United States that will last for generations. All of these innocent people that you kill have brothers and sisters and tribe — tribal relations. Many of them were not opposed to the United States prior to some one of their friends or relatives being killed. Then, sometimes, they cross over not only to being opposed to the United States, but by being willing to pick up arms and become a terrorist against the United States. So you may actually be creating terrorists rather than eliminating them by using this program in the wrong way.

[boutons_deux]

Blair-Bush & Iraq: It’s not just the quagmire but the Lawbreaking & Deception


Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is complaining that he is unfairly blamed for causing the current mess in Iraq and that if Saddam had still been in power it would be just as unstable.

He is, perhaps deliberately, missing the point. His invasion of Iraq was illegal and based on deception and propaganda. That was what was wrong with it. A quagmire that is the fruit of illegality and fraud is the worst.

The UN Charter allows of only two legitimate grounds for war. One is self-defense. Blair was not defending Britain from Iraq when he invaded and captured Basra.

Blair gave the opposite impression to the public. He delivered a bizarre speech in which he said that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction against Europe in as little as 45 minutes. It is not even clear what that assertion could possibly have meant. Iraq had no delivery system for getting chemical weapons to Europe, and you couldn’t have hoped to obtain so much as a sandwich in Baghdad in only 45 minutes. Saddam in any case had no such weapons. British officers scratched their heads and supposed that Blair had misunderstood some briefing he received.

...

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/quag...deception.html

[boutons_deux]

The lies that led to war

A leaked British memo, and other do ents, make it clear that Bush intended all along to invade Iraq -- and lied about it to the American people. The full gravity of his offense has not yet sunk in.

http://www.salon.com/2005/05/19/lies_4/