We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials, Aug. 12, 1945.
Will Bush be impeached? Will he be called a war criminal? These are not hyperbolic questions. Mr. Bush has permitted a small cadre of neoconservatives to isolate him from world opinion, putting him at odds with the United Nations and America's allies.
What better illustrates Mr. Bush's isolation than the fact that he delivered his March 16 ultimatum to the U.N. concerning Iraq from an air base in the Azores, where there was no prospect for massive demonstrations against his policy. Standing with Mr. Bush against the world were Britain and Spain.
The U.S., once a guarantor of peace, is now perceived in the rest of the world as an aggressor. Its victim is a small Muslim nation unable to defend its own air space, much less to project power beyond its borders. If Iraqis attempt to resist invasion, they will be slaughtered.
On the eve of Mr. Bush's ultimatum, it came to light that a key piece of evidence used by the Bush administration to link Iraq to a nuclear weapons program is a forgery. Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, has asked the FBI to investigate the origin of the forged documents that the Bush administration used to make its case that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary of State Colin Powell denies that the Bush administration created the phony documents. "It came from other sources," Mr. Powell told Congress, but he could not identify the source.
As George Santayana said, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it." The administration's use of forged evidence opens Mr. Bush to unflattering comparisons that his enemies will not hesitate to make. They will point out that it was Adolf Hitler's strategy to fabricate evidence in order to justify his invasion of a helpless country. He used S.S. troops dressed in Polish uniforms to fake an attack on the German radio station at Gleiwitz on Aug. 31, 1939. Following the faked attack, Hitler announced: "This night for the first time Polish regular soldiers fired on our own territory." As German troops poured into Poland, Hitler declared: "The Polish state has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms." The German High Command called the German invasion of Poland a "counterattack."
Thanks to his neoconservative cadre, outside the U.S. Mr. Bush is now a disliked and distrusted politician. Mr. Bush's enemies will exploit parallels to "naked aggression." After many decades of U.S. leadership in building an "international order," Mr. Bush's enemies will hold him accountable for his defiance of this order.
As much as those of us who prefer national sovereignty to world government lament the fact, the many decades of appealing to "world opinion" and enlisting it in behalf of our foreign policies has resulted in considerable authority being poured into that nebulous concept. In setting Mr. Bush in opposition to this American creation, neoconservatives have exposed him to serious charges. Democrats, who intended to use allegations about the 2000 Florida vote to destroy Mr. Bush's presidency as illegitimate, now have more deadly ammunition.
Mr. Rockefeller will not be the only one to ask if the forged nuclear documents are part of a Bush administration campaign to deceive the public. Polls show that 50 percent of Americans believe it was Iraqis who hijacked the airplanes and crashed them into the World Trade Towers and Pentagon. Inattention or media incompetence are the likely explanations for this extraordinary misinformation, but some will now blame deception.
Others are already thinking the forged documents are part of a neoconservative campaign to deceive President Bush and win his support for their Middle Eastern policy.
Many perceive Mr. Bush as following a reckless path, one that politicians normally try to avoid at all costs. If Iraq resists and devastating new explosives, which our military has been testing at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, are dropped on Baghdad, there will be massive civilian deaths and charges of war crimes fueled by anger at American arrogance.
Mr. Bush and his advisers have forgotten that the power of an American president is temporary and relative. The U.S. is supposed to be the world's leader. For the Bush administration to pursue a policy that sets the U.S. government at odds with the world is to invite comparisons with recklessness that we have not seen in international politics since Nikita Khrushchev tried to install nuclear missiles in Cuba. Is Saddam Hussein worth this much grief?
this is a good speech Search4true. But most peoples on this forum dont want to hear this point of view. i think they are in need for a war now and feel strong in their position as...the war as started. and anything we can say has no more value.
the fact that Sadam is an awful dictator doesnt give anyone the right to establish his own rules. it s as simple as this.
of course USA has the most powerfull army, of course USA is the major power of the world. of course, nobody can stop USA for commiting this war. yet, that doesnt legitimate it one second.
the laws exists to protect the weak from the strong. but when the stronger write the law alone, they arent any laws left.
i think that we cant discuss anymore now, when the guns start talking, their sounds is louder than any voices.
Ya know...many people continue to insist that the US/GWB/etc. are in violation of "the leaders of this world". So the other, some 40 leaders, who have formed an alliance....they are not leaders?
Unfortunately this war began...unfortunately the "world leaders" could not convince Iraq to disarm. But to say reckless actions....lets go back to the start of "this incident" some 10 years ago. Had Iraq disarmed...would we be here now?
If this campain is so reckless, where are the over 3000 missles that were so anticipated at the beginning of this entire conflict in what people were expecting a "shock and awe" attack? Reckless, I tend to disagree. Calculated and systematic I think is more like it. The Iraqi military and citizens are being afforded every possible situation to disarm, peacefully, to drop their weapons to the ground and not fight. Exactly what, I would like to believe, is what their military and citizens wanted and wished to do from the very beginning....but had no recourse to, in fear of their "reckless" leader. They were given no opportunity to speak their true minds. Does it make this war right, I don't know. But to call this reckless, I can only ask you to go back 10 years span of time and ask....who started this recklessly? To call this alliance of nations who decided to take up arms and engage in this conflict as "failures of peace"...I ask you to look upon the failures of "all" the nations of this world who failed to negotiate a peaceful resolution to this situation, which has lasted over 10 years.
It's unfortunate that the Peace movement didn't mobilize sooner, didn't mobilize during the past 10 years, to show your solidarity and your true beliefs in peace and attempt to force this man to come to a peaceful resolution and comply to the world. The peace movements claim of their mass numbers and voices, all around the world, they claim to be the world majority in calling for peace...where were you during these past 10 years? Had that happened....maybe we wouldn't be here now. Instead, all the peace movement can do now...is blame one man and over 35 nations of aggression, instead of blaming themselves for not acting, over the past 10 years to "peacefully force" and "peacefully demonstarte" and "peacefully speak out to this Iraqi Leader" to comply to the world and to peacefully resolve this.
The so called "peace movement" is just as much to blame for this conflict......they never came forth, with just as much passion as they are showing now when they speak out and lash out against this armed conflict, when maybe they could have spoke out and lash out to Iraq to disarm and "comply" to the wishes of all this nations of this world.
So what does that mean? Because a country is of a small size that they don't count? Because a country has a lower population base, their voice and opinion shouldn't be heard?
I fail to understand the point that you are attempting to make.
Its beginning to become more and more clear that you are a idealistic utopian who believes that the only true evil in the world is one man, President Bush. How naive. Not only didn't you support the campaign to defend America's safety before it started, but now you continue to bash our government which is accomplishing one of the greatest humanitarian feats in our lifetime. Obviously you cannot begin to comprehend what we are doing here. Soon you will know, I doubt you'll understand and i'm sure you'll move on to another inappropriate argument, but soon you will know. God save the United States of America and let its enemies foreign and DOMESTIC appreciate what she has given them.
I've listened to some others theory of Bush doing this for Israel, but a tad different then how I've heard how some explain their point here.
Yep, this war could be all about Israel, but as I've heard it from others, once this is over and done, there will be more leverage on and against Israel to conform to wishes of others, as one of their implied threats will be gone. Allowing for a potential "forced" peace process to take place and be placed on them.
Calling someone "stupid" as you did and continue to do only displays your intelligence level. You can't debate or argue your point without attempting to make yourself feel superior.
