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.

[woody]

if bush went to war on bad intel, then where did the bad intel come from? are those who provided faulty intel going to be held accountable? bush is the president (not excluded from the law) but if someone, in any profession, gives you false advice (intel) and you make a decision on that advice, how accountable are you for the negative outcome of your decision? there a difference between directly lying and basing your decision on bad intel which you thought at the time was true.

will bush ever be held accountable? i don't know. i figured this. if there was that much solid evidence against bush that he intentionally went to war on lies which he knew were false at the time, all politics aside...left or right..., i would hope that he would be charged. just as any person would in this country.