Why are Feith and company so defensive? Because Nuremburg trails would consider them war criminal

[sabra]

http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/article1.html

<snip>

Finally, there is the question of war crimes, the likely reason that Feith and company are so sensitive about challenges to their ostensible roles as upstanding civil servants sworn to defend the American Republic. The Nuremburg tribunals established the now universally accepted principle that anyone who falsely makes a case for aggressive war should be considered a war criminal and held accountable. And there is much in the lead-up to the war against Iraq that suggests such a conclusion. Beyond the collection and stovepiping of dubious intelligence, the provenance of the Niger uranium forgeries has never been resolved to anyone’s satisfaction, and the possible role of the Office of Special Plans in their exploitation cannot be ruled out. If part of the government deliberately lied to another part to justify a war, the urgent need for a cover-up would explain the recently revealed intensity of the White House’s reaction to whistleblower Joseph Wilson, who exposed the forgeries.

Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee promises further hearings. But Gimble hasn’t given him much to work with. If the inspector general had only looked a little wider and deeper, he might have discerned a persistent pattern of questionable information being deliberately manipulated, then landing on the desks of White House officials to make a case for war. That would have made for an interesting report.
_______________________________

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.