Quote Originally Posted by Tachikaze
And sometimes a representative must weigh the benefit of an action against the cost in human life. What was the benefit of invading Iraq?

Bush has committed a far more serious crime than lying to Congress about an extramarital affair. He isn't even being threatened with impeachment, let alone imprisonment.
Indeed, the CinC must weigh such matters on a more than infrequent basis.

At the time of the "go" decision, the Bush administration felt that taking Iraq out of the hands of Saddam and establishing a semi-functional (or better) democratic state there would complement the actions in Afghanistan and "bracket" the greatest threat (and terror supporter) in the region -- the Islamic Republic of Iran.

That end result is still possible, assuming that Iraq and Afghanistan proceed towards a greater degree of stability (though admittedly, forecasting stability in Iraq in the near future is something of a pipe dream).

Thus the goal was in line with long-term U.S interests and the long-term success in the War on Terror.

What galls me is the poor planning tactically. I think some of the administration's decision makers assumed that we'd kick apart the apple cart quickly (true, Saddam's forces hadn't a chance) and then the repressed people of Iraq would spring toward democracy (and tolerance of the USA) without a hitch -- obviously step two was poorly thought out. As I have said numerous times before, there are no "force multipliers" for an occupation -- you need boots.

However, none of this is criminal. Bush broke no laws in pursuing this policy, gathered the support of Congress along the way, and acted as in his role as commander in chief. Is he culpable for the costs as well as the outcomes? Absolutely. Can you argue that his chosen policy is operating, due to poor execution, against the very long-term goals he sought to achieve? Yes. But there has been nothing criminal there. We lost thousands of casuaties at Tarawa because of poor decisions and the Brits lost most of their paratroops at Arnhem because of poor intelligence decisions leading up to an operation. The leaders who make such decisions have to live with them, and they may well lose their opportunity to lead -- but it is not a crime. They convicted McVey unfairly for losing the Indianapolis, labeling Bush a "criminal" over Iraq is just as innacurate.

If you want to nail Bush, go after him over Padilla -- an American citizen denied counsel after being apprehended, unarmed, on US soil -- you have far better grounds.