Wednesday, July 14, 2004

The Intelligence Was Flawed?!

That's one of the biggest understatements to come out of the political realm in the last 100 years! In the last couple of weeks, reviews of the "intelligence" gathered on Saddam Hussein's Iraq have been published in both the United States and Great Britain.

In the United States, the CIA and its related agencies bore the brunt of the heat for the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.

Today, the 'Butler Report' is hardly any more complementary towards the parallel efforts in the UK.

As the Mother Jones website indicates, there were serious problems identified in the public media with the "intelligence" being used to justify invading Iraq. This article from Mother Jones it pretty blunt about it.

So, the intelligence was "flawed", the conclusions "exaggerated". I hear both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush protesting that "they believe they did the right thing". Last time I looked, if you made the decision, you bear the responsibility for its consequences. As the respective leaders, both Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush hold ultimate responsibility for the decision to engage in war. That means bearing moral, fiscal and political responsibility. The constant refrain 'It was justified' from Mr. Blair, and similar protestations from President Bush just don't hold water. If your advisors lied to you gentlemen, it's time to do a serious house cleaning. Failure to engage in a very public, obvious clean-up is tantamount to backing the actions of these people.

The argument has been made, several times, that 'The world is a safer place without Saddam Hussein' by both Bush and Blair. This is the worst kind of 'the ends justify the means' logic that can ever be made. It is time for this kind of disgusting rhetoric to be put aside, and the culprits that perpetrated the web of lies that led this world into an unnecessary, largely unjustifiable, war be held to account for their actions.

Mr. Bush faces accountability before his electorate this fall - but that isn't the kind of accountability I refer to. The electorate is not judicially trained, and certainly not in a position to treat the complex legal issues properly. This is something to be held before the courts. Yes, those non-elected, "activist" populated bodies that are tasked with the complex job of interpreting people's actions against the laws of the land.

No comments:

The Cass Review and the WPATH SOC

The Cass Review draws some astonishing conclusions about the WPATH Standards of Care (SOC) . More or less, the basic upshot of the Cass Rev...