war crimes: are Democrats guilty too ???

[welshTerrier2]

we often talk on DU about how bush is guilty of war crimes and treason and violating international law ... bush should be tried by an international tribunal for his criminal actions ... there is substantial evidence that bush bombed Iraq, killing numerous innocent Iraqi civilians and trying to provoke Saddam into retaliating, before obtaining authorization from Congress via the IWR ...

but, as the following excerpt from today's Democracy NOW reports, Clinton and some of the "we're tough on defense" Congressional Democrats may also be every bit as guilty ... one has to wonder how willing those Democrats who were complicit in authorizing bombings will be in pushing to make the case against bush and bringing impeachment charges when they would be implicating themselves at the same time ...

whatever happened to the Democratic Party that knew right from wrong on foreign policy? is this what they mean by "i didn't leave the Party, the Party left me?" it is very difficult to remain a Democrat these days ... wake up Democrats; people are dying while you empower bush to do more killing and continue his catastrophic occupation ... STOP IT NOW ... STOP IT NOW ... STOP IT NOW ... what the hell kind of people have we elected who refuse to oppose the slaughter being carried out in all our names?

source: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/1328247

*******************************

JEREMY SCAHILL: To look at the politics of this, it's very interesting that John Kerry, Senator John Kerry, raised this issue last week and said that he's going to be raising the Downing Street minutes publicly, and there's been a firestorm of controversy. In fact, the far right-wing publications, Newsmax, all of these Ann Coulter clique of people have made a big deal about this. John Kerry is going to bring articles of impeachment against President Bush. But I think we need to step back and look at something here. If an honest assessment was done, what we’re looking at is George Bush picking up from where Clinton left off and just taking it a step further. Bill Clinton systematically attacked Iraq throughout his entire presidency. He oversaw the largest sustained bombing campaign since Vietnam. What a Congressional committee with subpoena power should really do is go back and subpoena every military official who’s ever had anything to do with these so-called no-fly zones, bring them in front of Congress, swear them in and ask them, “What were your orders, both given and received?” And what you’ll see is a systematic violation of international law and the U.S. Constitution that was supported openly by Democrats.

And so John Conyers who’s been consistently against these things is the perfect person to raise these kinds of charges because his voting record shows that he has been consistently opposed to it. Many of the Democrats in the Senate and the House have big problems because they supported the Iraq Liberation Act, they supported the pummeling of Iraq, the punishment of Iraqi civilians through these bombings. And I have met people whose children have been killed in these bombings. And that’s what we have to remember. There was a human price here that was very heavy. And we have reported on that on Democracy Now! This is a case of -- the media need to follow these events in real time. This was a bombing that was happening very publicly, and it was documentable in real time. And it's great that now it's getting attention, but one of the problems that the Democrats are going to run into on Capitol Hill is you need to go back and look at their policies, their positions, their votes. And it’s going to be damning of them.

*******************************

[ixion]

1. anyone who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq

is guility, be they dem or repug.

That is including, but not limited to, politicians, pundits and pesky so-called 'journalists'.

[welshTerrier2]

5. nice sig ... allow me to repeat part of it here ...

"Dropping bombs from a safe height on an already hard-pressed people, whose infrastructure is in chaos from years of sanctions and who live under an oppressive regime, isn't a 'war'. It's a turkey shoot."
-- Terry Jones

i would only add that US bombings of Iraq during the "sanctions" and during the lead-up to the invasion as an unjustified provocation were much worse than a turkey shoot; they were also war crimes and everyone who enabled them should be prosecuted regardless of party affiliation ...

[theboss]

2. Out of curiosity, when were the Dems ever pure on foreign policy?

Since WWII, the only president who didn't seem completely intent on running the rest of the world was Eisenhower? You got Truman getting us involved in an unwinnable war in Korea. You have Kennedy stumbling blindly into the Bay of Pigs and starting to up Vietnam. You have LBJ essentially beginning the Vietnam War. You have a Democratic Senate filled with Scoop Jacksons calling for more military might to fight the commies. You have Carter giving the awful Shah a safe haven and triggering a hostage crisis in the same year he started secretly funding a war in Afghanistan. And you have Clinton bombing Bosnia, the Sudan, and Iraq while letting millions of Rwandans die.

People need to stop being naive.

[jonnyblitz]

4. great post. makes me think of lyrics to an anti-flag song

"wake up, wake up, to the world around you."

[welshTerrier2]

7. someone coined a great name for the debacle in Iraq

they called it the "Bay of Goats" ...

[mike_c]

9. you know, up until a few years ago I would have likely disagreed...

...with you, but no more-- all of the post-WWII U.S. governments were deeply involved in an utterly corrupt and contemptible foreign policy, Democrats included. Jimmy Carter tried to make some changes, but mostly centered around human rights issues. The essential motives behind U.S. foreign policy, largely driven by monetary greed, political ambition, and corporatist imperialism whether inside the closet or out-- remained intact even under Carter. The last few years have been a real political education for me.

"Purity" isn't the issue-- questioning the purity of U.S. foreign policy under any administration during the last 60 years is like questioning the purity of turds floating in a cesspool. They're all still turds, no matter how brightly you polish 'em up.

[FrenchieCat]

14. I think that you are getting "carried" away.....

In your statement.....Since WWII, the only president who didn't seem completely intent on running the rest of the world was Eisenhower

I think that you are accurate, for the most part, in reference to Eisenhower....but I read your post is an overstatement. I believe that context of history and the perceptions as they were then...should provide some balance to your convenient 2005 pacifist stance as you relate to a time gone by.

I don't believe that Clinton or Carter...and for that matter, JFK wanted to "run the rest of the world" via military might.

I would agree with you that Korea was not required....although, at the time, we were still fighting the "Cold War"...which meant that the conventional wisdom and the policy of that era was to keep Communism "put down". Although many can now look at this "Cold War" theory and certainly have doubts...there were no doubts for most Americans who were practicing "Duck and Cover" at school and their parents...at the time. The same can be said about Kennedy and the Bays of Pigs. Put into context...it was a part of the "Cold War" fight. I don't know how many would have found JFK heroic, had he allowed for Nuclear missiles to be installed facing our shores in the middle of the "Cold War".

And you have Clinton bombing Bosnia, the Sudan, and Iraq while letting millions of Rwandans die.

To group all of these viarious conflicts together may not be wise. I believe that each must be judged on it's own merits...not clumped together as though each didn't have it's own story. That would make us guilty of seeing things in Black & White...without the shades of Grey reasonable folks are known for.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,15502561-38200,00.html
War crimes caught on video
By Adam LeBor in Belgrade
June 04, 2005
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1520469

Plus, let's all remember that Bill Clinton was the greatest Republican President that we ever had!

[wyldwolf]

25. While I agree with most of what you've replied with... I must ask... again

..Just HOW was Clinton "the greatest Republican President that we ever had?"

What is the criteria for that?

Who decides it?

[FrenchieCat]

33. Because he deregulated the Telecommunications industry,

pass the Welfare Reform (a GOP dream), signed NAFTA and The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA and named a Republican as Defense Secretary.

However, my saying that Bill Clinton was the "Best" Republican President is a "joke".

[wyldwolf]

34. hmmm

FDR named two republicans to high level positions in the war effort and proposed welfare reform himself:

"The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. It is inimical to the dictates of sound policy. It is in violation of the traditions of America. Work must be found for able-bodied but destitute workers. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief." - FDR

FDR a Republican?

Paul Wellstone supported DOMA. Wellstone a Republican?

Howard Dean was a leading governor supporting NAFTA, and attended the initial White House ceremony with Canadian and Mexican leaders in 1993.

Dean attended the White House ceremony for the signing of the NAFTA side agreements in 1993. According to a Los Angeles Times report of that day, "President Clinton's uphill fight to persuade Congress to vote for the North American Free Trade Agreement begins today when side agreements with Mexico and Canada…are signed."
(Source: White House press advisory, 9/13/93; Los Angeles Times, 9/14/93)

Dean continued to support NAFTA throughout the 1990's, and as recently as March 2003.

"I was a very strong supporter of NAFTA. I believe it's going to create jobs in the United States of America."

"REPORTER: What are your thoughts about U.S. trade policy. Was NAFTA a bad idea?"
"DEAN: "No, NAFTA is a very good idea."

"I still think NAFTA was a good thing."
(Source: Dean on "This Week with David Brinkley," 1/29/95; Dean in Rutland (VT) Herald, 7/15/02; Dean at JFK Library forum, 3/26/03)


Howard Dean a Republican?

Just what makes NAFTA, DOMA, Media Deregulation, and NAFTA "Republican?"

[FrenchieCat]

35. Like I said.....

"my saying that Bill Clinton was the "Best" Republican President is a "joke". Did you get that part?

In my opinion, Clinton was a very good president.....just not a perfect one.

I think that is something we can possibly agree about....Non? :shrug:

[wyldwolf]

26. They never were

I believe the difference is what the intentions were.

And to be quite honest, no Republican administration was ever so hell bent on controlling the world until the present one.

But this notion some on DU have that the Democratic party was ever a leftwing pacifist haven is pure nonsense.

On foreign policy, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, LBJ, and even Carter and Clinton had much more in common with our current misadministration than they would Dennis Kucinich (for example.)

[welshTerrier2]

36. leftwing pacifist haven ??

do some people actually believe this? are there examples?

let's be very clear about what was written in the base post by a poster who is NOT a pacifist:

"whatever happened to the Democratic Party that knew right from wrong on foreign policy?"

i trust your reference to "leftwing pacifist haven" was not said in response to the base post ... and i will say that there was a time in this country that the Democratic Party wasn't afraid to stand up and say the war in Vietnam was dead wrong ... it's not about pacifism; it's about common sense ... it took them long enough to do it but they finally found their way ...

in essence, you've agreed with my statement, and i with yours, when you observed: "And to be quite honest, no Republican administration was ever so hell bent on controlling the world until the present one." truer words were never spoken ... this makes the complicity of the Senate Democrats all the more damning and lends credence to the observation that "whatever happened to the Democratic Party that knew right from wrong on foreign policy?"

the Democratic Party, for politics or some other reason, continues to fully support a republican administration that is "so hell bent on controlling the world" ... i think the Democratic Party of the past would not have done so ...

[wyldwolf]

38. multi-parts

i trust your reference to "leftwing pacifist haven" was not said in response to the base post

What post was I replying to?

do some people actually believe this? are there examples?

Silly me for not setting up a complex word and phrased based bookmarking system to reference everytime someone has made the claim on DU that military action is inherently rightwing and that no "real" Democrat would ever use military action.

[welshTerrier2]

39. nice attitude !!!

what post were you replying to?

well, i didn't see anything in the post you replied to that said anything whatsoever about the democrats being pacifists ... what you did say was that "some on DU" ... as noted in my post, it was not clear whether you were responding to the base post or not ... in fact, i said exactly: "i trust your reference to "leftwing pacifist haven" was not said in response to the base post" ... it seems like my assumption was correct ...

and as for having some type of magic bookmarking system so that you can document every little nuance you tuck away in a post, i think you overstated the case ... if you're unable to support it with details, fine ... i see very few posts, especially from the left, that are not critical of the Party's long history of support for war ... especially taking more recent history, don't you regularly see those "on the left" hating what Johnson did in Vietnam or what Clinton did in Iraq? still, we should understand that there is a very strong anti-war component in the Party and you can't just look at past presidents or elected reps ... a majority in the Party, even among the general public, do not support the continued occupation of Iraq ... and that number has been growing steadily for very good reasons ... the Party itself is out of touch with its on people ... perhaps you have identified the wrong group of people seeking a "haven" in the Party ... perhaps those in the hawkish minority are the naive ones to believe they have the support of most Democrats on their positions on the war ...

why not tone down your label tossing a bit while you're at it ... when you object to those who see the Democratic Party as a "leftwing pacifist haven", could you not be equally accused of seeing the Party as a "rightwing hawkish haven" ??? do you acknowledge that some if not most wars fought by this country were not fought for the most upstanding reasons regardless of what was publically used to justify them? you seem to want to turn PEACE activism into a dirty word ...

anyway, like it or not, i thought your attitude was uncalled for ... i'm confident you don't agree ...

oh, btw, i didn't think you actually responded at all to the point i raised ... i stated:

"in essence, you've agreed with my statement, and i with yours, when you observed: "And to be quite honest, no Republican administration was ever so hell bent on controlling the world until the present one." truer words were never spoken ... this makes the complicity of the Senate Democrats all the more damning and lends credence to the observation that "whatever happened to the Democratic Party that knew right from wrong on foreign policy?" ...

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

3. Some of this is spin, as always.

After Poppy out the lid on Saddam in GW1, the NO FLY zone was imposed by GWB and the Brits. We routinely shot down any Iraqi aircraft straying into that no-fly zone. No questeions, no mercy. We also imposed economic sanctions on Iraq and prohibited medicine and some food from entering the country.
Sadly, Clinton did not stop this when taking office. So in a sense "Bill Clinton systematically attacked Iraq throughout his entire presidency." is a true statement.

[whistle]

6. Close, but no cigar....

...it wasn't the politicians, it was the corporations who were guilty of the war crimes. Follow the money! In the case of Bush/Cheney, the money for Bush's War goes right to them and their "have mores":

<snip>
II - The Myths of the 20th Century

On August 8th 1945, the American, English, French and Russian met in London to organize "the pursuit and the punishment of the great war criminals of the European Axis Powers," by creating a "military international tribunal" (article I,a).

The crimes were defined under Title II, article 6.

1 - Crimes against peace by those who were responsible for starting the war."

2 - Crimes of war for the violation of laws and customs of war."

3 - Crimes against humanity, in other words crimes essentially committed against civilians.
<snip>
When Hitler and his political allies won the absolute majority in the Reichstag, they obtained aid for rearmament in dollars, pounds and francs. The German bank, Shreider, financed Hitler's department of propaganda, but it was mostly the great American, English and French trusts which financed the rearmament.

This was true in the case of the American chemical consortium, Dupont de Nemours and of the English trust;

Imperial Chemicals Industry, which subsidized I.G. Farbein with whom they had shared the world powder market, and;

Dillon Bank, in New York which subsidized the Vereinigte Stahlwerke, the German steel trust. Others were subsidized by Morgan, Rockefeller, et al.. Thus did the pound and the dollar take part in the plot which brought Hitler to power.

<more>
<link> http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/zionmyth3.htm

[Asgaya Dihi]

8. Deserves a look

Guilty or not I don't know, but the best way to earn credibility is to show that the rules apply the same to everyone. If they might have, take a look. If they are guilty, charge them. Party shouldn't matter.

[sandnsea]

10. Left losing for us again

Yeah!! Just when I think the left has finally pulled their heads out of their asses, it turns out they just can't stand the fresh air, and up go their heads again.

Bonifaz had the right idea, Bush lied to Congress. But if the left can't differentiate between legitimately going after Saddam in the 90's and making up intelligence to invade, then we're going to be right back where we were two years ago.

“Within 48 hours after the attack on Iraq, the president wrote a letter to Congress indicating that Iraq posed a serious and imminent threat to national security and if he knew that was not true at the time he submitted that letter it is a clear violation of the False Statements Accountability Act of 1996,” Bonifaz said.

Under this Act, amending 18 U.S.C. § 1001, it is a crime knowingly and willfully (1) to falsify, conceal or cover up a material fact by trick, scheme or device; (2) to make any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) to make or use any false writing or document knowing it to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of the legislative, executive, or judicial branch.”

[mike_c]

12. I dispute that there was ANY legitimacy in "going after Saddam..."

...after 1991 especially. Saddam Hussein was our creation. We tipped the balance of the Iran-Iraq war and kept him in power. We helped install him in his presidency. Do you honestly think if we could effect those events without invasion, or war, or brutal economic sanctions that targeted the civilian population, that we could not have brought down Saddam Hussein without them? Saddam Hussein has been a convenient fiction for over a decade-- the whipping boy of the conservative foreign policy hardliners who desparately needed some means to justify sending a military expeditionary force to take up a garrison residence in the Middle East. What else do you think the most recent round of lies was all about?

on edit: Who's this "us" you're speaking of? I don't want any part of a coalition that seeks to justify the excesses of U.S. foreign policy.

[sandnsea]

15. Easier to support a puppet than knock one down

Especially in the Middle East. This is the part of the left that nauseates me, the part that can't recognize evil exists outside of US policy. It does. Saddam was it. Which isn't to say war was necessary to deal with him, that was an equally evil concoction of Bush. Not Democrats, Bush. Lumping everything together on Saddam means nobody will be held accountable. That's been the problem for the last 2 years and the left still doesn't get it.

[mike_c]

19. you're ignoring the REASON the U.S. found it necessary...

...to "knock down" that particular puppet-- it had absolutely nothing to do with "evil" and everything to do with geopolitics and empire building. And implementing the PNAC plan for regional hegemony. And control of Middle Eastern resources. And a raid on the U.S. Treasury by corportate interests than knit government and business together-- the fabled MIC. You're spewing RW talking points for justifying the illegal invasion of Iraq. Saddam was evil. Saddam was evil. You're getting very sleepy....

Nauseated? Drink some more Kool-Aid and you'll feel better in the morning.

[sandnsea]

20. Exactly. Bush Doctrine.

Stay focused on the task at hand. Is that possible?

[welshTerrier2]

13. left wing? is wanting the laws upheld left-wing???

when you accuse bush of a crime, as i do, are you left wing?

why is it left wing to point out that Democrats MAY BE complicit in the crime as well?

i call that good citizenship ...

quit tossing around labels ...

[sandnsea]

16. 1998 is not 2001

A stated policy on paper is not the same as launching a war. It is leftists who can't seem to figure out the difference, so I absolutely will call it for what it is.

[welshTerrier2]

17. run that by me one more time ...

i couldn't agree more that bush's invasion of Iraq was an international crime ... but this isn't a bush's crimes were worse than authorizing bombings argument ... the issue raised on Democracy NOW was the history of illegal actions against Iraq and the Democrats role in those actions ...

bush's invasion of Iraq was clearly criminal but what's that got to do with authorizing illegal bombings ... and even if the criminal bombings that Clinton, some Democrats and some republicans MAY HAVE authorized was not illegal in your view, what in the hell does that have to do with being left-wing?

would you like to have people call your views right-wing?

the problem i have with your label is that calling for an investigation has nothing to do with being left-wing or right-wing ... the reality is that you seem to object to anyone who calls for an investigation of Democrats ... you don't seem to mind what Democrats do whether it's criminal or not ... you apparently label anything that criticizes Democrats or calls for an investigation of Democrats (and of course republicans) as left-wing ... i'm not sure you've explained how calling for an investigation of alleged international crimes makes one right-wing or left-wing or a centrist for that matter ... couldn't calls to investigate the actions of elected officials come from anywhere on the political spectrum ???

perhaps you should spend more time thinking up labels for Democrats who are complicit with the republicans ... i'll refrain for now from offering my suggestions ...

[sandnsea]

18. Let me put it this way

I want the neocons. I don't care about anybody else in Congress, not Republican, not Democrat. Just the neocons. Clinton is not and never has been a neocon. If he were, he would have launched a war in 98 or 99, the way the neocons wanted to. Lieberman isn't even a neocon. Anybody who tries to lump them all together based on flat out anti-Americanism is just an idiot. They won't get ANYBODY that way.

People label me various things all the time. Oh well. I don't care. I'm tired of the left fucking everything up. And, by the way, I'm equally tired of the Liebermans and Bidens giving this administration a pass too. But I can't blame them when they become targets every time somebody tries to hold Bush accountable.

This ignorance has been going on for two years, I'm fed up with it.

[DerekG]

22. How unfortunate that I'm a Christian, and not a politico

And I could care less whether the men who butcher children fancy themselves "neocons" or "neo-liberals"; I confess I'd draw enormous pleasure in seeing those bosom buddies, Bush Sr. and Clinton, brought before the Hague (both have, after all, accrued rather substantial body counts in their respective tenures).

[sandnsea]

24. Facts be damned

If Clinton had used the military in Rwanda, there'd be a leftist reason why it was wrong too.

[Donna Zen]

29. Ding ding ding

And let us add: if genocide had been permitted to proceed as planned in Kosovo, then the left would have accused the US of refusing to assume leadership when there is no oil. I'm not sure why Bosnia was included on the list since we let several hundred thousand die. Oh well.

Cold War foreign policy that has been followed over the years, while open for debate, is really not the issue currently plaguing the world. It is the Great Game Redux, 19'th C. thinking with its failed past, moving to a new era that will bring its certain ruin.

As for the Democrats: well, certain of our representatives agree with the neocons and in the beginning, were the neocons. Others may be the willing pawns of corporate influence or at least at their mercy, but there is something that effects all Democrats: the dreaded meme "weak on defense." It keeps them in line and is the back drop for many of their actions.

As long as that is the case, they, and thus we, will be held hostage.

The brand needs to be changed.

[eridani]

30. What about the successful ethnic cleansing of the Krajina?

No different than the hypothetical situation in Kosovo, except that US mercenaries helped to perpetrate it.

[gratuitous]

11. It's hard to say who is guilty and who is innocent

If you don't conduct an investigation and develop the evidence.

[burrowowl]

21. Yes

and

whence the quote: let us not talk falsely, now that the hour is getting late. ?

[magellan]

23. This could be what brings Americans together

A fish rots from the head down. To straighten out our country we must start from the top and investigate them all. Let it be just. And let the chips fall where they may. (Fish...chips...lol)

I would not be sorry to see 98% of Congress and major players in the last three administrations hauled off to the hoosegow. If that's where they deserve to be then so be it.

And what a terrific warning that would send to future politicos.

[leesa]

27. Absolutely! Also the Dems who have allowed Bush to do what he's doing.

They are fully complicit.

[Larkspur]

28. My senator Lieberman is definitely a war criminal

He and Gephardt should be tried for war crimes along with Bush and Cheney because Lieberman and Gephardt helped propel the IWR version that Bush supported through the Senate and House and both preened with Bush in the Rose Garden on Oct. 10, 2002 over IWR.

I will not be voting for Lieberman in 2006.

[Mountainman]

31. It was Dems who started and continued the Vietnam war

John Kennedy, Lindon Johnson, McNamara, etc,

And many are guilty of war crimes done in the name of supporting South Vietnam and fighting communism.

[welshTerrier2]

37. the point is ...

that if any president or government official is guilty of "a systematic violation of international law and the U.S. Constitution" and of attacking civilian targets, they should not be above the law ...

the argument is NOT being made that all wars are, by definition, war crimes ...

[Ksec]

32. Id be willing to sacrifice a few to take down the lying warmonger

No kidding, it really wouldnt bother me if a few of the more pro war Dems were taken down to get the big lyin bastage who started all this insanity.