Who is "MORE" Guilty?, W. Bush or the Troops Options

[Guest_CANNONBALL_*]

just a theoretical debate on guilt...

So you have a couple incidents where troops are being held in confinment for war atrocities.

And you have W...who sent the country to war based on shotty intel (if you wish to believe that). I don't...I think he's been gunning for Saddam since his daddy was in office and suspected him of having a smoking gun to justify his invasion, but whatever.

Who is more guilty? Bush may not have pulled a trigger, but he did something far worse IMO...he is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of people....both foreign and our own.

Whether or not the troops did what the media has convicted them of is not for me to say. what the situation was, motivation was...etc is all speculative to date, because really, unless you're there...how can you tell what they did was wrong (or perceived to be wrong)? the fog of war is a bitch.

[Testm0nkey]

I think if scandal, corruption and palpable guilt go up the ladder than the consequences for those actions should as well. The guys weilding the pens have more power and say then all the men that enlisted in the military for whatever their reasons. I am not excusing the acts of certain troops or entire outfits, they are still responsible for what they have done. But months, years, and commands in a war zone can change a person and a whole group of people. In the worst case scenario the US military were used as a malleable force for dirty politics on entirely false pretenses for which they were mostly unaware. And I know it is some far off ideal to think that is a sole occurance.
All in all each level in the hierarchy has their own responsibilty and when those responsibilities get fuzzy and corrupted they all have to face it crumbling around them. It is just a sad fact.