0
   

What do you think of Blair's speech to Congress?

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 05:57 pm
I wanted to leave a little more substance early and lost the replying; then, running out of time, I was at a lose. So here is the essence of it all:

They (Bush/Blair) hyped WoMD; fear of instant abilities of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare; retaliation with same; al Queda connections; etc. as primary justification to a public that required UN approval (which never happened) before going to war. This was all a lie, no truth - illegal war.

Myself, I always believed that there were WoMD anyway. Therfore, there advent was not justification for war. I always believed, and still do, that Saadam would eventually give legal reason for a war

As it stood, there was sufficiant deterence from the UN inspectors. A cranking up of the UN pressure was highly justified and there was every indication it would work.

What was done was inhuman and criminal. I truly believe that there should be war tribunal with Bush, Blair and majordomos on trial. So does Bush, else, why did he try to (did he acheive it Question ) get resolutions passed to exempt him and his cohorts from trials?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:15 pm
I'd have to agree with you on the tribunal, Bill. I think it's more than justified -- even ovedue. But it would be a horrible awakening for Americans who think ever'thin's just fine and the resentment could get very ugly.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:36 pm
But, did Bush pass his own pardon in the UN? I know he tried!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 08:53 pm
BillW, Most of our believing Saddam had WMD's was based on what this administration claimed. None of us dreamed up the idea that Saddam had WMDs. Without all that information shared by this administration, none of us would have been convinced about the number of tons of biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. This administration also claimed "urgency," which is being refuted every day, every week, and every month this administration claimed they knew where they were located. They lied on all counts; that justifices impeachment and a world court to find them guity of crime against humanity. That so many would write off thousands of innocent dead Iraqi's perpetrated by this administration is unconscionable. c.i.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Thu 31 Jul, 2003 09:11 pm
See, Rove has won again. He has got the media and the general public believing that the Bristish caused Bush to tell the only lie. The mastermind of obfuscation!

There were 177 words of lies in the State if the Union message. This doesn't include the other 1000 separate lies - such as the Jessica Lynch story. Impeachment - no, don't dirty our hands on something that couldn't not happen. Trial and imprisionment after next years losses - yes!!!!!!!!!!!
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Aug, 2003 12:29 pm
Quote:
http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php

Daily News
Cover-up on Iraq exposed

August 20, 2003

When the names of the witnesses called to testify at this week's sessions of the Hutton inquiry were announced, it was hoped that the torch that had so illuminated the dark recesses of the Ministry of Defence and the BBC would shine as brightly on Downing Street. Within hours of the start of the proceedings, those hopes were realised.

A clutch of revelations have corroborated almost all the key charges made by Dr David Kelly, as they were originally reported by the BBC.

Charge One was that the dossier had been "transformed" in the last week before publication.

An email from the Prime Minister's Communications Director, Alastair Campbell, to Blair's chief of staff said the dossier was undergoing a "substantial re-write" overseen, among others, by the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, John Scarlett.

Charge Two was that the dossier had been "sexed up" to make the Prime Minister's case for war. Among the "sexiest" of the details was the claim that Saddam Hussein could have weapons of mass destruction deployed within 45 minutes.

Successive versions of the dossier released last week showed that the 45-minute claim was indeed a late addition.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 04:37 pm
I've no doubt Blair exaggerated the threat from Iraq. How else could he produce a legal excuse for what he was about to do? But the dispute with the BBC is a side issue, and one the BBC will probably lose. Gillighan is no fool, but he embellished what Kelly told him, and that small error is his downfall (and the BBC).

If the Hutton enquiry finds against Blair, he is finished. But somehow, as Blair set up the enquiry in the first place, I don't think it will. Call me cynical or what but...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Aug, 2003 10:40 pm
Quote:
Government lawyers spent the weekend briefing the prime minister on the evidence he will give the inquiry on Thursday - the same day as BBC chairman Gavyn Davies is due to appear.

The defence secretary, who is due to give evidence on Wednesday, may have to become a "sacrificial lamb", according to a Labour MP on the Commons foreign affairs committee that questioned Dr Kelly in the week of his death.


I'll neither call you cynical, Steve, or what, but ... ...
:wink:
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 10:26 am
I think Blair is toast - no matter what, this matter has become his legacy. Big question, did Blair orchestrate Kelly's death Question Exclamation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 08:56:34