As Barack Obama and his pliant media pundits are “talking up the achievements of the six-year occupation,” Consortium News‘ Robert Parry (7/1/09) is writing of the “public celebrations by Iraqis marking the American pullout from Iraq’s cities.” Parry’s look back the last six years’ reality clearly recalls how, “relying on false intelligence and laughable legal theories, Bush justified launching what the New York Times may call an ‘unnecessary war‘ but what was in reality a ‘war of aggression'”–constituting, Parry reminds us, “what the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II deemed ‘the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole'”:
While those crimes were underway, major U.S. media outlets avoided stating the obvious because any recognition that Bush waged “a war of aggression” would force other conclusions, such as the need to subject him, his senior advisers and some foreign allies (i.e., Tony Blair) to a war crimes tribunal.
The big news organizations also didn’t want to admit their own complicity in this crime, since almost everyone in American journalism who wanted to keep a comfortable seat at the Establishment’s table either endorsed the enterprise or kept quiet.So even today–more than five months after Bush left office–it’s still much easier to dismiss what happened as “unnecessary,” to cite the pre-war “intelligence failures,” and to criticize Bush primarily for his tactical misjudgments in planning an effective occupation–not committing enough troops and not having a detailed enough post-invasion plan.
Parry well knows that “accusing him of criminality is much trickier,” since, “after all, in the view of the mainstream news media, war crimes are something that ‘rogue states’ commit, petty tyrants from Rwanda or Yugoslavia who can then be dragged off to The Hague and put on trial.” Alas, “Such humiliations are not for the former ‘Leader of the Free World’ and his subordinates.”
Check out the overriding corporate media reaction to even the most tepid congressional gestures toward accountability for members of the George W. Bush government in FAIR’s Action Alert: “CNN Scoffs at White House Critics: Anchor With Bush Ties Dismisses Abuse-of-Power Hearings as ‘Stagecraft'” (7/31/08).



Can anyone tell me why Afghanistan isn’t similarly condemned as a “war of aggression” by so many “progressives”?
(Jesus, I’m tired of having to stick quotes around that word – but needs must.)
If it’s an act of “defense” to bomb, invade and occupy another country for harboring terrorists, then why shouldn’t Cuba be able to justify an invasion of south Florida to deal with the likes of Orlando Bosch et al on the same grounds?
Yet until relatively recently, Afghanistan (having now morphed to “Af-Pak”) received pretty goddamn little attention from whatever you want to call “the left” in this country – and even now the criticism is almost all about “mismanagement” and “creating terrorists”, rather than the immorality and illegality of this imperial venture from the get go, isn’t it?
I’m sorry – this sort of contradiction flies in the face of all the pretty words so many “progressives” love to utter about “speaking truth to power” and “a world without war”.
War is war. Dead is dead.
Maybe I’m being a romantic, but I think Dr. King understood that.
‘Bout damn time we did, too.
I’m not sure that Cuba having a right to use its military to go after Orlando Bosch is as absurd as your rhetorical question suggests. It obviously lacks the military means to do so, but that’s different than not having a legal justification.
Jim, Cuba has every right to seek these killers’ extradition to face trial for the Cubana murders, among others – and to sanction the US for harboring them (in a fantasy world, I realize).
Now, the Bay of Pigs could have been a legitimate case for attacking the US in retaliation for its backing of an invasion of Cuban soil – but are you saying that nations have a right to respond to acts of terror by unleashing deadly force on the population of a country that harbors the perpetrators? Would that qualify as a legal act of defense under international law?
I don’t see it.
“what the New York Times may call an ‘unnecessary war'”
The New York Times and Barack Obama (and many others).