"Well, that's history. That's the past. That's talking about what happened before. What we should be talking about is what we're going to do now."

The man who spoke those words was Senator John McCain, and the subject was the Iraq war and its origins in official falsehood, strategic error and wishful thinking. Expect to hear him repeat those same dismissive phrases again and again as the presidential campaign unfolds.

Understandably, the presumptive Republican nominee prefers to avoid examining how our finest young people and vast amounts of our national treasure came to be squandered in that desert, since he was among the war's most excited advocates.

There were no weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq (as some of us were not surprised to learn), and in particular no nuclear weapons under construction, as advertised. There were no significant connections between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein (as the Pentagon reaffirmed in a recent intelligence analysis). There was no legal basis for an invasion. There was no population inviting us to occupy their country as liberators.

Yes, it's all "history," or at least it will be someday, and the historians will properly record Mr. McCain's role in the fiasco with all due asperity. But on the fifth anniversary of the war, it is a little too easy to dismiss everything that led us to this point as "what happened before."

With the Arizona senator fresh from a Congressional trip to Baghdad, where he preened for the photo ops along with two of his campaign co-chairs, Senator Joseph Lieberman and Senator Lindsey Graham, this is certainly an appropriate moment to evaluate the judgment of the politicians who have promoted the whole enterprise, and the consequences of their decision.

How mistaken were the war's optimistic promoters in 2003? The official line on the expected cost of rebuilding Iraq after ousting Saddam was just under $2 billion, according to testimony provided by Bush administration officials. That estimate did not include the likelihood, according to Paul Wolfowitz, then the deputy secretary of defense, that Iraq's oil reserves would cover the entire cost of invasion, occupation and reconstruction. Five years later, the estimated cost of the war to American taxpayers is well over $2 trillion, including the care we must provide for wounded Americans over the next few decades. Much of the Iraqi oil, whose production remains sporadic, is being stolen and smuggled away.

The difference between an estimate of $2 billion and a cost of $2 trillion could be considered a significant miscalculation, even in a Republican government.

Yet those figures don't quite reckon with the real costs, which should include the rise in the price of oil from around $36 a barrel in March 2003 to well over $100 a barrel this month. Some economists go further, blaming the subprime mortgage collapse-and the ensuing deluge of bad paper that may capsize the world economy-on the effects of the war.

What did we get for all our money and blood? What diplomatic and strategic achievements can we attribute to the war? The conflict over Israel and Palestine has grown more intractable, with the rising influence of Hamas and Hezbollah. The influence of Iran, an avowed enemy of the United States, has risen across the region and penetrated deep into Iraq, where our occupation props up Tehran's allies. The United States military has been badly depleted and demoralized, while our global prestige has dropped.

Still, Mr. McCain tells us-and reportedly assured the Iraqi prime minister-of his intentions if he is elected president. "What we're going to do now is continue this strategy," he said, "which is succeeding in Iraq, and we are carrying out the goals of the surge."

Actually, the aim of last year's troop escalation was to create sufficient stability in Iraq to permit the Sunni, Shia, Kurdish and other political leaders to consolidate their government, provide decent public services and begin reconciliation. General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces there, has acknowledged that the progress toward those objectives is far from satisfactory. Based on the originally stated purpose of the "surge," it isn't succeeding. Predictably, the level of violence in Iraq is again rising, with the daily death toll in March so far doubled from the low point in January.

It is telling when a presidential candidate speaks so dismissively of history and urges us to ignore "what happened before." In this instance, it is a sign of bad faith and worse judgment.
(c) 2008 You may reach Joe via email at: Joe Conason



http://www.issuesandalibis.org/

There was no legal basis for an invasion


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
No UN member has brought this issue of the war's legality before the Security Council and no nation-member of the International Criminal Court has expressed the desire to have the International Criminal Court rule on the war's legality.

Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." [7] The Secretary General's personal opinion however was not that of the United Nations because the Charter reserves this authority solely to the Security Council, which has been silent.

the US can veto anything being a permanent member so what would the point be exactly?

the point would be that it would be on record.

and exactly what countries are on the security council?

The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II:

The Republic of China
The French Republic
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council

looks like the only country that could would be the soviets but with the demise of the cold war and oil prices at record levels why whould they care? they are just sitting back laughing and exporting oil

That is very simple madison = A US veto would give you a tad bit of ammunition to validate your position

each passing day validates my position as the news keeps getting worse and worse.

So I guess all these countries are also bamboozled by this question and all their leaders are as stupid as you say Bush is?

The Republic of China
The French Republic
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The United States of America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_Council

looks like the only country that could would be the soviets but with the demise of the cold war and oil prices at record levels why whould they care? they are just sitting back laughing and exporting oil
would I need to spell it out for you? China is our #1 tradeing partner and holds most of our debt, ya know tienemen square and the rescent brutal crackdown in Tibet, those commies somehow make for good allies. UK? come on they wont raise a whimper and like I said only Russia doesnt have some type of vested interest except the high prices they can now charge for there number one export oil, its been a boon for them and they are enjoying this, as we bleed ourselves dry they are getting richer

There are also 10 other countries elected to the Security Council. I suppose you have invalid reasons for them too?


Belgium (2008) Indonesia (2008) South Africa (2008)
Burkina Faso (2009)
Italy (2008) Viet Nam (2009)
Costa Rica (2009) Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (2009)
Croatia (2009) Panama (2008)

Fifteen countries and not one of them want to establish once and for all the illegalty of the war?

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.


Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. (AFP/File/Sven Nackstrand)

His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.


An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologize for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.

But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologize over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.

But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."

He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."

"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."

"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."

The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.

Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0305-01.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War


Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal." [7] The Secretary General's personal opinion however was not that of the United Nations because the Charter reserves this authority solely to the Security Council, which has been silent.

He has over the past more than a year used the words 'not in conformity with the Charter' to describe his view of the Iraq war and of course one of his purposes in establishing the UN panel on change was to look at the question of preventive war and try to bring that in conformity with the Charter principles, which do not promote preventive war," Mr. Eckhard said.

"Since the war he has been emphasizing the need for nations on the Security Council and the UN membership as a whole to pull together, saying it is in everyone's interest that stability be restored to Iraq," the spokesman said. "So once the invasion took place, he did not look back, he looked forward."

"But the principle of the Charter, called into question in his view by the invasion, needs to be addressed in a serious way," Mr. Eckhard added. "And he asked the high level panel to look specifically at that issue. That panel is supposed to report by the end of this year and the Secretary-General would formulate his recommendations and put them to the General Assembly."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=11953&Cr=iraq&Cr1=

The Secretary General's personal opinion however was not that of the United Nations because the Charter reserves this authority solely to the Security Council, which has been silent.

Anything changed would be applied to future not the past.

I honetly do not think the UN is prepared to go there, think about it, if we were found guilty of war crimes would we then be liable for retributions and who would collect them? america would walk away from the UN at that point just as we did to theworld court when america was found guilty of state sponcored terrorism against Nicarauga

The UN is the only vehicle that can legally decide the issues that we have been talking about. It seems you already have the UN convicting us - maybe we would be exhonerated. Like our Supreme Court the UN is the only organization that can decide these issues. There is a lot of OPINION out there also by individuals that believe the war was legal based on UN resolutions.

Well considering that the United States is a super-power with the most accumulation of Weapons of Mass Destruction...I dont think that bamboozled is the most accurate word to use when asking why the rest of the world let naughty boy Georgie have his way.....