Baldilocks asks the question Did Bush Lie?
My answer?
Nope.
But what he did was worse.
Here's the thing that separates advanced civilizations from civilizations that aren't so advanced. The ability to use reason to change previously held opinions and "facts." While some of my colleagues think this is the purview of the West (more properly thought of as the North), I don't think so. But that isn't really important here.
What Bush has done consistently in both domestic and foreign policy, is take his own belief, and translate it into policy...even in the face of strong contrary evidence. In fact, in some cases (education stands out here) he has actually gutted attempts to even collect information that can be used to contradict hypotheses. For a regular guy, this would be ok...though we'd probably call him a hard head. And let's be fair, we do this all of the time. The vast majority of us hold fast to beliefs that are routinely hamstrung by the facts.
I think that Bush truly believes that there are weapons in Iraq. This is why he continues to say so even now. So he didn't lie at all. But it appears as if he ignored contradictory evidence. Evidence that eviscerated all of the facts the White House posited as "proof" for example. He also ignored variance in international sentiment. While there was unanimity on the point that Saddam was a bad man...there was variance with regards to Iraq's threat level, and with regards to the possession of weapons. There was also variance WITHIN US BORDERS about this issue--not simply among Bush's enemies, but among his bureaucratic allies.
Bush chose not to listen. Instead he chose to listen to individuals who were already predisposed to attack Iraq without provocation. I'm not certain, but I believe this is a war crime.
Or he has more information than they do.
War crime?!? Not even close.
Posted by: aaron at January 27, 2004 06:46 PMUnder what conditions are pre-emptive wars legal under international law?
Posted by: lks at January 27, 2004 08:03 PMDefine "international law." You write as if it had some sort of objective meaning.
But before we go 'round and 'round by answering questions with questions, answer my question, first: Please define "war crime".
Posted by: Brant at January 27, 2004 08:42 PMa) Crimes against Peace. Initiation of invasions of other countries and wars of aggression in violation of international laws and treaties, including but not limited to planning, preparation, initiation or waging a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing.
b) War Crimes. Atrocities or offences against persons or property, constituting violations of the laws or customs of war, including but not limited to, murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose of civilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
c) Crimes against Humanity. Atrocities and offences, including but not limited to murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, imprisonment, torture, rape, or other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds whether or not in violation of the domestic laws of the country where perpetrated. . . .
taken from http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/ccno10.htm
Posted by: Lester Spence at January 27, 2004 09:05 PM
Define "war crime," please.
Posted by: Brant at January 27, 2004 06:14 PM