US Training of Death Squads in Iraq? - War Is A Crime .org

In the face of growing criticism over its Iraq policies, the current administration hasacknowledged mistakes such as inaccurate prewar claims of Saddam's military capability andinadequate policies to address post-invasion stabilization. However, these statements appearcalculated to defend the ongoing U.S.-led war rather than to admit fault. Though Bush'sacceptance of ultimate responsibility for the failures of U.S. policy is a positive step, no one hasyet been held accountable for these errors.For example, the president says he was “responsible for the decision to go into Iraq.” Yet hedefends that decision, even though the invasion was a clear violation of the United NationsCharter and was based upon false claims that Iraq already disarmed of offensive militarycapabilities by the United Nations constituted a threat to U.S. national security.Regarding his prewar contention that Iraq still had chemical and biological weapons, an activenuclear program, and offensive weapons delivery capabilities, President Bush admits inaccuracybut attributes it to mistakes in intelligence gathering. He excuses his misjudgment by arguingthat members of Congress and the intelligence branches of allied governments reviewed thesame information and came to similar conclusions.In reality, prior to the U.S. invasion, foreign governments noted that Iraq had failed to properlyaccount for all proscribed weapons programs, and some countries suspected that Saddam hadresidual weapons or components banned under UN Security Council mandates, but most nationswere dubious of U.S. and British claims that Iraq still constituted a military threat. Similarly,most members of Congress simply believed the intelligence presented to them by theadministration rather than studies in scholarly journals and United Nations reports. It nowappears that errors did not come from problems within the CIA but that administration officialsdeliberately manipulated intelligence data in order to frighten Congress and the American peopleinto supporting an invasion.Acknowledging obvious problems is a positive step for a president often considered arrogant andunaware of the havoc resulting from his decision to invade and occupy Iraq. However, until thereis a serious re-evaluation of administration policies, there is little hope that suchacknowledgements will improve America's standing in the world or ease the suffering of theIraqi people. What neither the administration nor Congress has acknowledged is that the invasionof Iraq would have been wrong even if Saddam Hussein still had WMDs and even if the postinvasionsituation had been handled more responsibly.Recently, leading figures in the Democratic Party who had largely supported President Bush'sIraq policies are finally starting to voice their opposition in response to pressure from theirconstituents. However, the Democrats have yet to present much of an alternative. Their recentlyreleased defense plan entitled “Real Security” fails to renounce Bush's preventive war doctrineand simply urges Iraqis to assume “primary responsibility for securing and governing theircountry with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces.” Democrats and their apologists claimthat a more forceful statement for withdrawal would risk their being portrayed as weak, but eventheir moderate plan was branded “a strategic retreat” by Vice President Dick Cheney. RepublicanSenator Christopher Bond was more honest. He noted essentially no difference between the146