Blair

[driveace]

Was Blair telling the truth OR just a good liar.
Some recon he should face a war tribunal,me too!
As the banners said B Liar
So Bl**dy Liar or not?

[Dave B]

As someone who's not embarrassed to admit to voting Labour, I say Blair was a tool of the US Republicans and should as a bare minimum feel feckin' ashamed for what he did in an attempt to crawl up Bush's backside.

Bush was - is - an evil religious zealot but it embarrasses me that our PM would stoop to his level.

[Macd]

Even of the war was illegal Blair will never face a war tribunal.

[Mark in Oshawa]

You guys live in a fantasy land.....

[BDunnell]

He was telling the truth as he sees it. Unfortunately, he is a religious zealot of disturbingly epic proportions, yet who refuses to talk about his beliefs for fear of being branded a nutter, despite the influence they have undoubtedly had on his politics. I find him an increasingly disturbing character. He was also let off the hook by the inquiry, big time. Sadly, we will probably never see him facing genuinely harsh questioning on the still very pertinent subject of Iraq, because he will never subject himself to it.

[Malbec]

He was telling the truth as he sees it. Unfortunately, he is a religious zealot of disturbingly epic proportions, yet who refuses to talk about his beliefs for fear of being branded a nutter, despite the influence they have undoubtedly had on his politics. I find him an increasingly disturbing character.

So so true.

It was interesting to hear him say on a recent BBC interview that had there been no evidence about WMD he would still have found another thing to pick on to 'justify' invading Iraq.

Its quite disturbing to find someone in a position of power in a democratic country who makes a decision then picks and chooses the evidence to suit, and who marginalises or simply eliminates anyone who chooses to oppose his point of view. I was of the naive belief that people should normally look at the evidence, weigh it up and then make a decision.

That said I was not expecting Blair to say anything to the inquiry beyond merely "I know I was right" so he didn't surprise me at all. Its the other stuff that came out over the past few weeks thats interesting. The army knowing it had to go to war yet being refused permission to prepare in case word got out to the public that war was inevitable. Arguments from the attorney general advising that the war was illegal being withheld from cabinet, although when he changed his mind his documents suddenly found it much easier to get to Downing Street. Key ministers being barred from meetings where Iraq was discussed because they were seen to be off-message or openly anti-war.

Sadly this kind of behaviour wasn't confined to the decision to invade Iraq, this was Blair's normal leadership style.

I'm glad to see him gone and happier to see that Brown has far more respect for Britain's democratic institutions like the Cabinet and the House of Commons. Hopefully we'll never see someone like Blair in power again.

[driveace]

B.Liar has gladly gone ,BUT it would be nice if he was gone for ever,like some of the poor service personel,who have given their lives,because of B.Lair and Bush,s deeds.
Dubya is now never seen in the USA now I believe,since he went from power,I believe he vanished to his Texas Ranch ,never to be seen again,At the end,I believe he could not get away quick enough!
You guys across the Pond tell me if I am wrong

[Rollo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8483506.stm
Sir Michael said Mr Straw had also told him at that he had "often been advised things were unlawful and gone ahead anyway and won in the courts" when he was Home Secretary.

Did I understand this correctly? Jack Straw admitting to breaking the law is one thing, but this pretty well much suggests that the courts were also complicit in helping him.

Not even the monarch is above the law:
"...the fundamental proposition that the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern ‘by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise’."
- Solicitor General John Cooke, 1648

The outcome of that particular decision, meant that Charles I became considerably shorter because he thought he was "above the law"

[Mark in Oshawa]

B.Liar has gladly gone ,BUT it would be nice if he was gone for ever,like some of the poor service personel,who have given their lives,because of B.Lair and Bush,s deeds.
Dubya is now never seen in the USA now I believe,since he went from power,I believe he vanished to his Texas Ranch ,never to be seen again,At the end,I believe he could not get away quick enough!
You guys across the Pond tell me if I am wrong

Bush is seen here and there. Ex Presidents always usually lie very low when their sucessor is in power. Bush was at all the Dallas Cowboy home games with Jerry Jones in his box. Bush isn't hiding...he figures he did the best he could and has no shame.

I wont get into how "legal" the war was, because I am not a lawyer, and I wont say it in retrospect was a great idea, but I don't remember anyone in the intelligence community telling Bush OR Blair that there was NOT WMD's in Iraq....Hind sight always makes people look bad doesn't it?

[driveace]

Hans Blick was there a long time and reported back that he had found NO evidence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
He asked for about 14 days longer to be 100% sure ,BUT they would NOT give him that!!!
They told him to get out so they could start the invasion
When i was at Kennibunkport in October ,people had NO time for Dubya,and were glad to see the back of him.They did like his father George Snr

[Malbec]

but I don't remember anyone in the intelligence community telling Bush OR Blair that there was NOT WMD's in Iraq....Hind sight always makes people look bad doesn't it?

I remember such a guy, his name was David Kelly. He was Britain's own Iraq WMD specialist, had been heavily involved in the UN missions to Iraq after Gulf War 1 and had written many intelligence papers on the subject. He knew who was who in Iraq and had forgotten more about the subject than just about anyone else ever knew.

He thought the whole 'Iraq has WMD' argument was such bull that he leaked his doubts to the BBC which then mentioned it in a morning news programme.

David Kelly was then hounded so hard by the MOD and Downing Street that he later committed suicide before he appeared at a parliamentary hearing, although right now there is a court case by a group of doctors asking for the case to be reopened as the original cause of death (cutting his ulnar artery) is unlikely to have killed him. We probably won't find out as the reports into his death are going to be kept secret for the next 70 years thanks to Hutton.

Odd how short memories are if a tragic death like his is forgotten so soon.

[Rollo]

I don't remember anyone in the intelligence community telling Bush OR Blair that there was NOT WMD's in Iraq....Hind sight always makes people look bad doesn't it?

Do the names Hans Blix or David Kay mean anything to you?

Blair has admitted to the Chilcot Inquiry that Britain was going to war irrespective of what anyone actually found, and the reason why I posted the quote about Mr Straw is that they would have fiddled the law courts later.


Hind sight always makes people look bad doesn't it?

Indeed it does... indeed it does.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I remember such a guy, his name was David Kelly. He was Britain's own Iraq WMD specialist, had been heavily involved in the UN missions to Iraq after Gulf War 1 and had written many intelligence papers on the subject. He knew who was who in Iraq and had forgotten more about the subject than just about anyone else ever knew.

He thought the whole 'Iraq has WMD' argument was such bull that he leaked his doubts to the BBC which then mentioned it in a morning news programme.

David Kelly was then hounded so hard by the MOD and Downing Street that he later committed suicide before he appeared at a parliamentary hearing, although right now there is a court case by a group of doctors asking for the case to be reopened as the original cause of death (cutting his ulnar artery) is unlikely to have killed him. We probably won't find out as the reports into his death are going to be kept secret for the next 70 years thanks to Hutton.

Odd how short memories are if a tragic death like his is forgotten so soon.

I remember Kelly. I will not buy into his death not being an suicide, but I will say that in light of how things turned out, he looks better in history.

The issue I have is SDECE, MI6 and CIA all believed Saddam had the goods. Saddam didn't do anything to dissuade this notion, and played his games with Blix. I do think Blair and Bush got it into their heads they were going to finish the job that was started in 91 and there was no dissuading them past a point, but I still am looking for the motive for this game. Bush was a rich man before he was in politics, so what did he gain and what did Blair gain? Both are now hated by a majority in their nations, so they wont have posterity to look forward to while they are alive. There was no GAIN for them to do what they did yet they did it based on ideas, faulty or not they had as the best decicion they could make. You can theorize and demonize them, but there is no hard fast proof that they did this for any real gain personally to them, which leads me to believe that they therefore should be put down as inept, not crooked. Huge difference....

[Malbec]

Sorry Mark but that is a rather distorted view of history. MI6 did not make public its recommendations to the government, but the head of MI6 later went on to say that the dossier presented as evidence of WMD by the government ignored much of the evidence MI6 had presented at the time that arguing against the presence of WMD. The Labour government picked and chose what to listen to which is not the point of intelligence is it.

BTW what makes you look down on Kelly as being unreliable as an expert on Iraqi WMD?

As a journalist once remarked to Blair who declared the WMD dossier complete and authoritative, since when has ANY intelligence report been complete and authoritative? Especially not one that plagiarised the work of a 2nd year university student and presented it as the latest intelligence data.

BTW Mossad was later investigated for its role in the whole Iraqi WMD issue by the Knesset. The verdict? That Mossad's presentation of data backing the presence of WMD and its suppression of any information arguing against it was most likely the lowest point ever reached by that intelligence organisation. Given that Mossad utterly failed to predict the 1973 war where Israel was almost wiped out that is one hell of a blow from the Knesset isn't it?

[Malbec]

Blair has admitted to the Chilcot Inquiry that Britain was going to war irrespective of what anyone actually found, and the reason why I posted the quote about Mr Straw is that they would have fiddled the law courts later.

Quite.

I don't think Mark is fully aware of the Iraq WMD dossier, 'sexing up' and the Hutton inquiry. The idea that there was no evidence suggesting that there were no WMDs is utterly laughable.

[BDunnell]

So so true.

It was interesting to hear him say on a recent BBC interview that had there been no evidence about WMD he would still have found another thing to pick on to 'justify' invading Iraq.

Its quite disturbing to find someone in a position of power in a democratic country who makes a decision then picks and chooses the evidence to suit, and who marginalises or simply eliminates anyone who chooses to oppose his point of view. I was of the naive belief that people should normally look at the evidence, weigh it up and then make a decision.

That said I was not expecting Blair to say anything to the inquiry beyond merely "I know I was right" so he didn't surprise me at all. Its the other stuff that came out over the past few weeks thats interesting. The army knowing it had to go to war yet being refused permission to prepare in case word got out to the public that war was inevitable. Arguments from the attorney general advising that the war was illegal being withheld from cabinet, although when he changed his mind his documents suddenly found it much easier to get to Downing Street. Key ministers being barred from meetings where Iraq was discussed because they were seen to be off-message or openly anti-war.

Sadly this kind of behaviour wasn't confined to the decision to invade Iraq, this was Blair's normal leadership style.

I'm glad to see him gone and happier to see that Brown has far more respect for Britain's democratic institutions like the Cabinet and the House of Commons. Hopefully we'll never see someone like Blair in power again.

The fact is that, although he has never admitted to such and will never do so, Blair went along with one specific thing in particular in relation to taking military action in concert with the USA under Bush — the idea of a crusade, of 'good against evil'. Both men had/have an idea of good and evil that is far too clear-cut. This without doubt has informed the policies of both.

Blair, in my view, was therefore overly 'impressed' with the notion of an open-ended 'war against terror', a brand name for a conflict that may have gone down well in the USA for some years as a worthwhile notion, but which has never commanded the same support in Europe, for a variety of reasons. One, in the UK, is surely our experience of terrorism emanating from Northern Ireland — the manner in which the situation there has been resolved with recourse to negotiation, even following such appalling and relatively recent events as the Omagh bombings. Was there an appetite for blood after that? Not really. Likewise, was there an appetite for blood here after the 7 July 2005 attacks? Not really. Aligning the UK too closely with a conflict or conflicts too closely associated with satisfying American domestic desires for retribution following '9/11', even involving Iraq despite the lack of any connection — other than a nebulous one relating to the aforementioned notions of good and evil' — was an appalling error. The leaders of France and Germany at the time, no matter how unpalatable both may have been as individuals, had it right when they took a more measured view of being involved.

So, thankfully, did the often-derided then-leader of the party I support in the UK. No-one should forget that the likely next Prime Minister of Great Britain was one of the credulous idiots who was taken in hook, line and sinker by the arguments in favour of the 'war on terror'. I recall members of the Conservative front bench in the aftermath of the invasion of Afghanistan and the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq castigating Liberal Democrats for their 'anti-Americanism' when they dared to criticise any aspects of US-led military actions. Some of the same individuals are still leading lights in the party which seems likely to form our next Government, yet the lack of scrutiny of their positions then and now is incredible. Those who seriously argue that 'if I'd have known then what I know now' in relation to Afghanistan and especially Iraq ought not to have their views, and least of all their political positions, taken seriously.

Returning to Blair, I find it very telling that he allowed himself to state his position with regard to the arguments deployed to justify the invasion of Iraq on a lightweight show hosted by Fern Britton. I'm sure you will recall the interview in which Jeremy Paxman — yes, he may be a bit of a circus performer now, but still harder-hitting than any of the interviewers our friends across the Atlantic are used to — asked Blair whether he had prayed with George W. Bush. Blair's reaction was something along the lines of 'Don't be silly, Jeremy'. The question was what he found silly, not the notion of praying with Bush. The reason the question was asked was because Blair did, almost certainly according to what I hear, pray with Bush. It was highly relevant. Are we comfortable with any of this? I hope not.

[BDunnell]

Quite.

I don't think Mark is fully aware of the Iraq WMD dossier, 'sexing up' and the Hutton inquiry. The idea that there was no evidence suggesting that there were no WMDs is utterly laughable.

One question should have been asked of Blair in the inquiry: when it became clear that there were no WsMD (surely a better acronym that WMDs), what exactly was the global threat posed by Saddam — or 'Saddamasane', as Blair pronounced him throughout the evidence session?

And even prior to that, what was your understanding of the '45 minutes' claim? I'd be intrigued to see whether it tallies with mine.

[BDunnell]

I remember Kelly. I will not buy into his death not being an suicide, but I will say that in light of how things turned out, he looks better in history.

What doubts did you harbour in relation to his expertise as an expert on Iraq's weapons capability at the time? Or are these retrospective doubts, cast in your mind when it became clear that his views cast doubt on the evidence presented for a war that you supported?

On the subject of Kelly's death, the idea of it being murder does, admittedly, strike me as absurd. I am all for questioning the official view of the present or history, but there are limits. It is nothing unusual for a post-mortem to remain classified. (Interestingly, probably irrelevantly, and dragging this back probably fruitlessly to the motorsport roots of these forums, if you go to the National Archives wanting to look at all the papers relating to the air crash that killed Graham Hill, you'll be disappointed as they will remain secret for something like 100 years after the event, rather than the usual 30.)



The issue I have is SDECE, MI6 and CIA all believed Saddam had the goods. Saddam didn't do anything to dissuade this notion, and played his games with Blix. I do think Blair and Bush got it into their heads they were going to finish the job that was started in 91 and there was no dissuading them past a point, but I still am looking for the motive for this game. Bush was a rich man before he was in politics, so what did he gain and what did Blair gain? Both are now hated by a majority in their nations, so they wont have posterity to look forward to while they are alive. There was no GAIN for them to do what they did yet they did it based on ideas, faulty or not they had as the best decicion they could make. You can theorize and demonize them, but there is no hard fast proof that they did this for any real gain personally to them, which leads me to believe that they therefore should be put down as inept, not crooked. Huge difference....

Or motivated by their own brand of religious zealotry, as harmful in its own way as anything deployed from other quarters. No one religion has a monopoly on destructive fundamentalism.

And why was the job not finished in 1991? Ask yourself that. It could have been, in terms of the death of 'Saddamasane', without a doubt.

[BDunnell]

When i was at Kennibunkport in October ,people had NO time for Dubya,and were glad to see the back of him.They did like his father George Snr

Anyone who suggests that all dislike of Dubya is politically motivated only has to ask themselves why the same dislike is not applied to all former Republican Presidents who went to war in Iraq. The argument is bankrupt. There are very specific reasons for the international hatred reserved for George Junior.

[Malbec]

One question should have been asked of Blair in the inquiry: when it became clear that there were no WsMD (surely a better acronym that WMDs), what exactly was the global threat posed by Saddam — or 'Saddamasane', as Blair pronounced him throughout the evidence session?

Well, we know the answer to that one thanks to the many interviews Blair gave in the run up to the war when he realised that the journalists interviewing him could tell that the WMD dossier was a load of cobbled together propaganda.

He would go on to talk about the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, then when that was torn to pieces by journalists who pointed out the lack of solid evidence and the fact that Saddam had spent most of his life looking for Al-Qaeda types specifically so he could kill them, Blair would pop his bambi face and say "you'll just have to trust me on this, its the right thing to do".

[BDunnell]

Well, we know the answer to that one thanks to the many interviews Blair gave in the run up to the war when he realised that the journalists interviewing him could tell that the WMD dossier was a load of cobbled together propaganda.

As could anyone, including me, who read it. Had the Iraqis developed unmanned versions of trainer aircraft left over from their old air force that were capable of being used as means of delivering chemical weapons? No. The Iraqi air force had long been grounded. Yet there it was, part of the famous dossier. No truth behind it at all, but there it was nonetheless.

[Malbec]

The fact is that, although he has never admitted to such and will never do so, Blair went along with one specific thing in particular in relation to taking military action in concert with the USA under Bush — the idea of a crusade, of 'good against evil'. Both men had/have an idea of good and evil that is far too clear-cut. This without doubt has informed the policies of both.

I agree with you on this. All too often Blair would fall back on his faith, not just his religious faith but his faith that Saddam was evil and should be eliminated, when trying to justify the invasion. I feel very uncomfortable about being lead to war thanks to our PM's faith and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

However I do feel that a strong part was played by a fervent belief held by both Blair and a few other key individuals that Britain's long term goals were best served by supporting the US straight after 9/11. This would ensure long term US gratitude towards the UK and increase London's influence in Washington, at least in theory. The UKs international diplomatic power would then be reinforced as a result of this association.

The problem with this approach of course was that Rumsfeld specifically felt that Bush's doctrine ought to be that alliances should not necessarily be based on traditional lines (ie Britain, NATO) but those of convenience with anyone who could help you in any specific time. Hence while Britain could be of use now, she could also be discarded very rapidly in the future.

The extent of British influence (or lack of it) could be seen in the way the US continually ignored British advice on the management of Iraq in the post-war phase despite having greater experience of running Middle Eastern countries and culture and counter-insurgency. This of course wasn't helped by Britain's failure to subdue Basra. Britain never did gain any influence in Washington and lost a lot of face as a result.

[Malbec]

BTW Ben, its good to see you back here, I've missed your well reasoned and sensible arguments!

[BDunnell]

I agree with you on this. All too often Blair would fall back on his faith, not just his religious faith but his faith that Saddam was evil and should be eliminated, when trying to justify the invasion. I feel very uncomfortable about being lead to war thanks to our PM's faith and I'm sure I'm not alone in this.

Only the other day, there was our glorious former leader justifying the removal of Saddam on the grounds that he was a 'monster'. So? Isn't Mugabe? It's not a strong enough justification for going to war.


However I do feel that a strong part was played by a fervent belief held by both Blair and a few other key individuals that Britain's long term goals were best served by supporting the US straight after 9/11. This would ensure long term US gratitude towards the UK and increase London's influence in Washington, at least in theory. The UKs international diplomatic power would then be reinforced as a result of this association.

I am unsure about this. What would have been the point? It's not as if we were looking for cheap deals on weapon systems from the US, or anything that would have represented a tangible benefit. This is why, with hindsight, Harold Wilson's refusal to become embroiled in Vietnam appears ever more admirable.



The extent of British influence (or lack of it) could be seen in the way the US continually ignored British advice on the management of Iraq in the post-war phase despite having greater experience of running Middle Eastern countries and culture and counter-insurgency. This of course wasn't helped by Britain's failure to subdue Basra. Britain never did gain any influence in Washington and lost a lot of face as a result.

Again, I feel this was a 'red herring', I'm afraid. I don't feel that our experience of running Middle Eastern countries, which was a long way in the past, would have been of any use. A few old buffers in the parliamentary Conservative Party used this as justification for not invading Iraq — that we should know better based on past experience. It was a weak argument in that direction, and I don't feel it's much better the other way round. The situation in Iraq post-2003 was always hopeless, as it was in Afghanistan, despite occasional short-term hopes. The important thing is still the question of going to war in the first place.

[Malbec]

Only the other day, there was our glorious former leader justifying the removal of Saddam on the grounds that he was a 'monster'. So? Isn't Mugabe? It's not a strong enough justification for going to war.

More worryingly he was dropping hints left right and centre that we should be going after Iran next, hints strong enough that the FCO had to issue a press release that regime change in Iran had never been, isn't and will never be British foreign policy. I'm not sure that we can confidently claim never to have tried regime change in the past in Iran though, but thats a different subject.

Frankly I find it rather objectionable that Blair tried to use this Iraq inquiry to try and affect current British government policy. It was not the right forum for such opinions and he should know better.


I am unsure about this. What would have been the point? It's not as if we were looking for cheap deals on weapon systems from the US, or anything that would have represented a tangible benefit. This is why, with hindsight, Harold Wilson's refusal to become embroiled in Vietnam appears ever more admirable.

We do. We can only afford Trident thanks to the fact that we use an American system, cutting costs. If the Americans didn't feel that Britain was a partner they wouldn't do this. However overall I agree with you, I think the whole concept of Britain being America's special friend is a tired outdated one.


Again, I feel this was a 'red herring', I'm afraid. I don't feel that our experience of running Middle Eastern countries, which was a long way in the past, would have been of any use. A few old buffers in the parliamentary Conservative Party used this as justification for not invading Iraq — that we should know better based on past experience. It was a weak argument in that direction, and I don't feel it's much better the other way round. The situation in Iraq post-2003 was always hopeless, as it was in Afghanistan, despite occasional short-term hopes. The important thing is still the question of going to war in the first place.

I don't think its any secret that both the FCO and the British army looked upon American behaviour in Iraq with disdain and sometimes outright horror, feeling that many decisions were contributing to a worsening in security. Both tried recommending changes at the highest level, both were utterly ignored. Eventually the Americans were left to pay heavily for their mistakes and learn their lessons the hard way, lessons already learnt by the British in places like Malaya and Aden.

[BDunnell]

I don't think its any secret that both the FCO and the British army looked upon American behaviour in Iraq with disdain and sometimes outright horror, feeling that many decisions were contributing to a worsening in security. Both tried recommending changes at the highest level, both were utterly ignored. Eventually the Americans were left to pay heavily for their mistakes and learn their lessons the hard way, lessons already learnt by the British in places like Malaya and Aden.

Learned senior commanders may well have understood those lessons, but our voice is a minor one. Equally, most British troops have undoubtedly behaved admirably in Iraq, but I don't think the whole of our forces have exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to dealing with the local population.

[Malbec]

Learned senior commanders may well have understood those lessons, but our voice is a minor one.

I think we learned that lesson (that our voice is only minor) after the invasion in 2003. Before that of course there was a lot of talk (much of it rather condescending) that the Americans would be only too willing to listen to our rather more experienced guys for guidance on what to do.


Equally, most British troops have undoubtedly behaved admirably in Iraq, but I don't think the whole of our forces have exactly covered themselves in glory when it comes to dealing with the local population.

True, but much of that misbehaviour only came to light way after the initial aftermath of the invasion when it became clear that the Americans had no intention of listening to British advice.

[airshifter]

Hans Blick was there a long time and reported back that he had found NO evidence of "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
He asked for about 14 days longer to be 100% sure ,BUT they would NOT give him that!!!
They told him to get out so they could start the invasion
When i was at Kennibunkport in October ,people had NO time for Dubya,and were glad to see the back of him.They did like his father George Snr

Any person that claims Hans Blix found no evidence of WMD has obviously never read his actual reports. He reported actual chemical finds (in small quantities), but large scale equipment for chemicals and quite a number of other things that were all illegal to even posses plans for per the cease fire agreements of the Gulf War.

Some of the very first IEDs found were binary warheads, and some news agencies even published photos of them. Hiding all over the media outlets was one example of illegal WMD materials. ;)


As for Bush, I don't think he is any less in the public eye than most previous Presidents. Recently he and Bill Clinton have been promoting the humanitarian cause in Haiti.

[Rollo]

I'm calling shenanigans on you. Shenanigans shenanigans shenanigans!


Any person that claims Hans Blix found no evidence of WMD has obviously never read his actual reports.

Link Please :D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7051059/Hans-Blix-warned-Tony-Blair-Iraq-might-not-have-WMD.html
''I think this was one of the most significant things of the whole story,'' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We got tips not only from the UK but from other intelligence, the US as well, so perhaps some 100 all in all. We had time to go to about three dozen of these sites and in no case did we find any weapons of mass destruction.''

[Tomi]

Any person that claims Hans Blix found no evidence of WMD has obviously never read his actual reports. He reported actual chemical finds (in small quantities), but large scale equipment for chemicals and quite a number of other things that were all illegal to even posses plans for per the cease fire agreements of the Gulf War.

Some of the very first IEDs found were binary warheads, and some news agencies even published photos of them. Hiding all over the media outlets was one example of illegal WMD materials. ;)

Dont you think that if any WMD would have been found, it had made big headlines in the press, and news?

[wedge]

F'ing neo-cons

[Mark in Oshawa]

You guys have your mind's made up, but I cant say 100% I will agree. Sorry....not buying into this myth that Blair and Bush just decided to take Saddam out for chuckles and giggles.

I do think it was a bad idea, and I do think that the time to have taken Saddam out was in 91 when they were rolling the Iraqi army up coming out of Kuwait, but alas, Bush Sr. and Thatcher were following the UN mandate, and that was to eject Iraq out of Kuwait. The resoultions Saddam agreed to wre the ones to allow open and equal access for UN inspections of any facility. Blix was constantly being blocked. Saddam's palaces were off limits but it was clear they were often military installations. So the seeds for mistrust and the fiction of Saddam's co-operation were all present in this post 9-11 world. Saddam admitted in his trial that he was trying to make the world believe he had the weapons.

AS for the assertation his airforce couldn't deliever them, that is fine, but you can send gas into areas with artilliery shells or helicopters. Iraq had the no fly zone, but the Army could go where they liked. If he had gas, he would have access to use it on his own people and did gas the Kurds. The fact he had no WMD's was NOT clearly evident. Yes Blair ignored information that was legitimate, but intelligence officers always play a game of percentages. What is more, what MI6 didn't know and what the CIA did or didn't know could be different, and the French and Russians also had reports. No one had the truth for sure. So Bush and Blair gambled and made this a war about WMD's. It was a DUMB idea and I thought so at the time because I knew if they didn't find a giant dump of weapons, they would look like imbeciles.

So...while I agree that maybe this was a bad idea, once the war was in motion, the die was cast and they had to finish what they started. They have done that. Blair and Bush were incompetant in their decision making and made decisions out of ideology, but I refuse to brand them war criminals. There was no mandate of open conquest to loot Iraq or enslave the nation. If the insurgency funded by Al Quaida in Iraq, and the Shiite militia had not made the life of everyone hell in the months afterwards, likely Iraq would be a lot further ahead.

Now I know I am going to get carved up by Ben and Dylan, but that is fine, I could have proof with a picture of Saddam with an atom bomb in his office while he ordered the execution of 20 kids and you guys would still feel Blair and Bush were the problem. No one misses Saddam...He was a dictator and a thug and the difference between he and Mugabe is he poked the west in the eye too many times and they called his bluff.....

[Mark in Oshawa]

Dont you think that if any WMD would have been found, it had made big headlines in the press, and news?

There was reports of binary gas shells being stored, but they were not loaded with any agents that could be considered WMD's. Since we all know at one point Saddam had them (everyone keeps telling me the US sold them to Saddam back before the Kuwait invasion), this was evidence of how he would use them if he still had them. The reality is of course Saddam got rid of it. They could be in Syria, destroyed or sold to someone else and THAT was one of the issues people worried about. The whole question was the neo-cons were worried that Saddam may take it into his head to sell the stuff to terrorist organizations, and in the aftermath of 9-11, that idea had merit as a threat.

Being simplistic about all of this is to ignore the realty that geopolitics and intellengence gathering is about nuances and conflicting reports. The proper decision in retrospect was NOT to invade, but it is easy to be the expert afterwards when the regime was exposed. in the Summer of 2002, Saddam was trying to play a game of obstruction to the UN's inspectors (just as he did when Clinton was President) while he actually didn't have the weapons....

[driveace]

Today Clair Short,the only politition to accually talk some sence.She resigned from the Blair government as she was bullied,by Blair and his cronies,who he surrounded himself with.
She knew he was telling a pack of lies,she also questioned why the attorney general suddenly changed his mind (nearly)overnight and declared the war legal

[Hazell B]

Hans Blix .... reported actual chemical finds (in small quantities), but large scale equipment for chemicals and quite a number of other things that were all illegal to even posses plans for.

Welcome to almost any country's content ;)
The average garage or shed contains stuff that's illegal under some laws! Jeez, I have things on my perfectly inocent stable yard that could be mixed up to make one hell of a bomb given simple recipes from the net. I'm not about the blow anything up, yet they're there.

[Tomi]

Welcome to almost any country's content ;)
The average garage or shed contains stuff that's illegal under some laws! Jeez, I have things on my perfectly inocent stable yard that could be mixed up to make one hell of a bomb given simple recipes from the net. I'm not about the blow anything up, yet they're there.

Says, Hazell B MacGyver :D

[Hazell B]

Yeah well, we all have hobbies :p :

I'm just making the point that as far as I can see no WMD were ever found or even close to being found in reality. I'm also willing to bet that if the same inspectors came to almost any given area the size of an average school or small farm, they'd find items that could (at a stretch) be used to help make a dirty bomb or even a part nuke!

This stupid fiasco of an enquiry will end with nothing worth the time, anyway. Nobody will face charges or even lose their pensions.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Yeah well, we all have hobbies :p :

I'm just making the point that as far as I can see no WMD were ever found or even close to being found in reality. I'm also willing to bet that if the same inspectors came to almost any given area the size of an average school or small farm, they'd find items that could (at a stretch) be used to help make a dirty bomb or even a part nuke!

This stupid fiasco of an enquiry will end with nothing worth the time, anyway. Nobody will face charges or even lose their pensions.

Don't be talking sense now Hazell....it will get in the way of some people's angry fantasies...

[Rollo]

This stupid fiasco of an enquiry will end with nothing worth the time, anyway. Nobody will face charges or even lose their pensions.

That's the really disturbing thing about all of this. The fact that not only were the British public lied to, but that the courts and legal process was manipulated in line with justifying a lie.

In the light of this and the recent MP's expenses scandal, and the fact that many of the MPs who were in responsible positions during the time of which this enquiry is focusing, those same people are still in some cases responsible positions.

If nothing is done, it does rather make a mockery of the whole political process.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Gee...a politician lied to you? Horrors...like THAT never happens...

[airshifter]

I'm calling shenanigans on you. Shenanigans shenanigans shenanigans!



Link Please :D

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7051059/Hans-Blix-warned-Tony-Blair-Iraq-might-not-have-WMD.html
''I think this was one of the most significant things of the whole story,'' he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We got tips not only from the UK but from other intelligence, the US as well, so perhaps some 100 all in all. We had time to go to about three dozen of these sites and in no case did we find any weapons of mass destruction.''



Link?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/pages/document_list.asp

Unlike the majortity who base their views on newpaper articles, I've actually read the weapons reports, which have been public information since day one.

Other than illegal rockets and programs, binary warheads, cluster munitions, mustard gas precursors, nuclear program information, illegal program information concerning rockets.... well other than that they had nothing illegal or WMD related. Except the lack of accountability for the VX and sarin gas, and pages upon pages of "maybe" they did it.

Note that the above link also contains some of the number of UN Resolutions which prohibited such programs from existing in any form other than when declared by Iraq and determined by the UN to exist for peaceful purposes.

I suspect that any of the "Blair and Bush are war criminals" crowd will either not read the actual reports or document, or simply gloss over all the illegal weapons activity proven to be fact. I read them with the sole intention of finding out what was actual fact and what was news hype. In some cases the cooperation by Iraq in certain areas was suprising, in other cases simply learning that uranium enrichment plans found buried in a home garden after a direct intelligence lead was amazing. And in almost all cases I found that without reading all of the information actually presented in a fact based way, I would have never had a clue based on what the press told us.

Being that I posted many of these sources way back in the Iraq War threads, I must assume that most people have chosen to remain clueless on the issue.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Shifter...I am going to read it, because unlike the rest of these trolls, I am interested in the truth, and I will go where it leads me. I for one think going to Iraq wasn't worth the political capital it cost and human cost BUT unlike the Bush haters and Blair haters, I think they made a calculation that it was worth the risk. Some of the intelligence said there was no WMD's, some did, and from what you have on UNMOVIC's webpage, I probably will find enough that I wonder what went down.

AS some of the Bush haters have pointed out...they know Saddam had WMD's once because Bush Sr, that bad man sold some to him. Something I suspect he wishes he didn't...but that is realpolitic.. Sometimes the attack dog in the yard you want watched goes rabid. It is a disgusting thing, and all nation states of power have played it so NONE of them has clean hands.....