Absolutely, it's time for those in charge to step up and accept accountability for the convoluted intelligence that was presented to decision-makers (namely CIA officials who blew suspicions way out of proportion). If there is no accountability in the system then integrity to any degree us unattainable.

Not with the information that is available now. If Bush did infact tell the CIA or any other alphabet agency to create an elaborate Power Point persuasive presentation to Congress saying we should declare war on Iraq then he should absolutely be impeached. I don't suspect that that happened though. Whatever the case may be Congress voted to go to war by an overwhelming majority so, in essence, they're equally accountable.

I'll provide you with an example; case in point: Enron. Lay informed his book-keepers to doctor the books so he could live on his own 36 hole individual golf course and launder billions of dollars. For all I care he can fry for ruining all those pensions funds of hard-working Americans. But let's say (strictly a hypothetical hypothesis) that Lay didn't know, that he had no idea and he didn't have any reason to believe he was doing anything wrong. Perhaps his executive accountant was trying to get a new position and took it upon himself to fill his pockets a little more (perhaps he claims excessive growth on stock reports or says their was unexpected yield on investments or new products, entirely believable) is Lay responsible then? Afterall, he isn't paid to do every job in every department of Enron's massive corporation. Is he expected to review every prepared detail from every department like an adult corporate baby-sitter? Of course not, that's outrageous to even assume that he would. If he did organize it (which I am sure that he did) then he needs to be punished. But if he didn't (theoretically speaking) than the subordinates need to be held accountable and be prosecuted.

 

I agree, Saddam was far from a Hitler but at the same time Saddam didn't have the means to become a Hitler. He did invade Kuwait and had we not intervened he would have stay indefinetly. He did commit killing of specific races in mass quantities (genocide) and he also had access and did use WMD during dictatorship (Hitler used V2 rockets against London). I think it's entirely within reason to say he did need to be removed.

 

Oh, you mean that .

 

I suppose, but the leader should be held accountable for his subordinates actions if he is responsible for putting his subordanates in their positions of power. Furthermore, I do beleive Bush knew a LOT more about what were and weren't the reasons to go to war while lying about them to US citizens.

Ok, then you beleive we should be world police even when there is NO threat from a country. So we should go into Africa and install ~20 new 'democracies'. We should also go into China and set them straight, since they commit more moral travesties than Saddam did AND they are a more direct threat to us. Don't you see that that ISN'T our job?! Saddam was bad, we know this, but it wasn't our place to take him out while he was not involved in any type of international conflict. There was even a statement from that 'world watch' organization (the one that promotes humanitarian acts such as dethrowning dictators) that said we should NOT have gone into Iraq based solely on humanitarian reasons. Since they weren't a threat to us, and we shouldn't have gone on humanitarian reasons (according to a humanitarian group nontheless) why should we have gone? The overwheming answer is that we should NOT have.

And then people say 'well we did, so now what'. Now we hold people accountable for a huge f***up, like you suggested. And in the absence of evidence on who exactly messed up, the Pres must take the fall. That's how our admin system works. So Bush should admit we shouldn't have gone to Iraq, admit that somebody he's directly responsible for lied (if it wasn't him) and except the consequences.

 

Exactly.

 

Yes, he should be held accountable if you can convince a jury of his peers that he did lie to Congress beyond the shadow of a doubt. The fact of the matter is that you can not. Bush didn't present the case to go to war to congress; Rumsfeld, Powell and his henchmen did. All the President could do was take the information THEY PROVIDED and make an educated decision based off their recommendations. The reality of it is, they gave the go ahead. Based off your reasoning you'd have expected Bush to fill a backpack full of water and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and search around Iraq for WMDs before he'd make the decision.


That's completely unbased speculation.

That's completely unbased speculation.

Never once before the war, did we ever justify our reason for a "preemptive strike" on the basis of humanitarian rights. It was strictly about preventing Saddam from conspiring to use a WMD or providing terrorists access to a WMD

Again, totally opinionated speculation.

That's not how the system works. That's how the Salem witch trials worked. A group of frenzied idealists needed a scape goat and killed a bunch of innocent civilians because they allowed a inept judicary system to run aray. Try to think critically and not rely on biased opinion.

Why should he admit that? Because you don't think we should be there and Bush is unqualified idiot who's trying to take over the world right? Maybe he (and the rest of the people who are actually doing the work; the soldiers) have a long term interest in seeing Iraq be a successful democracy capable of giving back to the global community. Perhaps that's why we're still there. Perhaps stomaching some bad weather once in a while and not backing out when ever something gets difficult is still valued. I guess that's just a crazy brainwashed ultra-conservative baby-killer talking.

 

You speculate more than I do. For goodness sakes, the idea that Saddam had WMDs was speculation and you bought that hook-line-and-sinker. And you're STILL clinging to it...hilarious...

You're right that we never used the humanitarian-aide-excuss before the war. They didn't start with that 'reason' until it was very clear that Saddam didn't have the inclination nor the ability to attack us or our allies.


How can you possibly still think the war in Iraq was started for a good reason?

 

Amen. Because there are no good reasons.

We removed Saddam for 3 self-serving reasons IMO:

- Payback for Bush Sr.
- Securing oil
- Setting up shop in the middle of the ish for future military strikes

Bush wanted to attack Saddam before 9/11. Terrorism has nothing to do with this.

 

According to Dick's notes, you're exactly right. Of course, some people here might think the VP's notes are 'speculation'...

 

(pats himself on the back and cracks his knuckles)

Examples would be fantastic.

Correction, my congressman bought it. I don't recall voting on the issue. And in reference to the "speculation", you could say that. It was speculation with detailed accounts, photographs, statistics and the like presented to elected officials who (as a majority) believed what they saw and voted accordingly.

Oh really, am I? From what inform did you arrive at that decision from? From the information where I clearly stated those responsible for fraudulent intell. use should be prosecuted or the part where I said I'd like to work with what we have and finish the job rather than leave the Iraqis (who largely are honest people willing and working to form a functional democracy) in a nation of uncertainty to crumble around itself so my kids can join the Army just like I did and potentially lose their lives there? I'll pass on that.

I agree with you there.

 

Damn, you really showed me. I wish I could crack MY knuckles on the computer...

 

Are you going to discuss the issue or just resort to personal attacks because the trend is growing ever-more present. I'm trying to have a legitmate conversation/debate on this........if you want I'll leave.

 

For everything in my post that you call speculation, you speculate the opposite. For example, I say Iraq was NOT a threat to any other country. YOU speculate that they were a threat to US and other countries.

We don't know; but what we do know is that someone lied to get us into Iraq (you seem to agree with this part). By the way, congress voted for war AFTER we attacked them. You do remember that, don't you? They voted for war for the same reason you use to stay in the war; we were there already, we have to finish.

 

Hahaha...personal attack...


By debate the topic do you mean re-explain to you how everyone who's looked into the WMD thing AND the Saddam-terror link thing has come up with the fact that BOTH were fabricated by Bush and Cheney as an excuse for us to invade Iraq? Or do you mean I should re-explain how you only think you have 'facts' and I have 'speculation' when neither of us has any proof of either opinion, except that we know we can't trust what the admin tells us (...but you still do...).

 

Or maybe I should re-explain how we KNOW that Bush and Cheney wanted to go to Iraq after 9/11 and link Al Queda to Iraq (even thouth they had no evidense whatsoever of a connection) from DOCUMENTS from their meetings. I guess that's more of my speculating though huh...

I never made a personal attack, I just pointed out how you were on the verge of e-thugging. It's funny how you start that type of online BS and then accuse ME of a personal attack on you...