Baby P debate

[Nocturnalist!]

you can't reason with a man like bush, therefore you have to be manipulative and make compromises. if playing bushy boo's lapdog was needed then so be it. doesn't mean blair's evil. might just mean he's smart.

In my book it makes Blair and his helpers immoral and bloody. I know it will never go to trial, but I consider such bloody men to be war criminals.

[Christopher McCandless]

Oh, are you saying their judgement was so good they got suckered by Bush

Not suckered at all - they knew what they were doing.

Exactly what I'm saying. They weren't suckered by Bush, they knew they were spinning a web of lies to present to Parliament and the British people.

Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.

[Nocturnalist!]

Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.

Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'

Hutton via John Scarlett... 'There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all.'

At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.

Blair either mislead Parliament about the 45 minutes thing applying to WMD... it was a complete lie, OR he lied about having been briefed in detail.

Ha ha... proof from your precious Hutton report that Blair lied in relation to a key element of his argument for going to war - lol

So when Briefed in detail Blair said that the 45 minutes related to weapons of mass destruction he would already have known that it actually related to small arms and not WMD. Either that, or he lied about being briefed in detail and being satisfied as to his briefing's authority.

That is just one small thing that came out during Hutton... how many other things lie under the surface of the DISGUSTING manipulation towards war and bloodshed.

Other little tidbits...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html

Perhaps you will now explain HOW being Bush's Poodle has been a benefit to our economy to the extent that it was worth all that bloodshed?

[SovaNu]

politics is all about manipulation and compromise, good luck finding a politician that does neither.

[TheoK]

 

[RageBeoulve]

True. Politics will never change. Waste of time.

[Callaway]

Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.

Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'

...

But Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons, Nocturnalist.  He deployed them against the Kurds in 1998 as part of the Anfal campaign, when more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0513/p08s01-wome.htm

[Christopher McCandless]

Prove that they were lying at the time. The Hutton report seemed to rule otherwise, if I recall.

Blair... claimed that Saddam's WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them. (WDM we now know did not even exist). Blair wrote, 'We cannot, of course, publish the detailed raw intelligence [hah convenient]. I and other ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and are satisfied as to its authority.'

So they were briefed incorrectly then - all intelligence has its probability attached to it. Add in the ineptitude of the civil service into the equation.

Hutton via John Scarlett... 'There was no discussion with the Prime Minister that I can recall about the 45 minutes point in connection with battlefield or strategic systems. Indeed I do not remember a discussion with the Prime Minister about the 45 minutes point at all.'

You recall every conversation you have ever had do you?

At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.

Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.

Blair either mislead Parliament about the 45 minutes thing applying to WMD... it was a complete lie, OR he lied about having been briefed in detail.

Being briefed in detail tends to mean a 10 minute conversation in the PM's office.

Ha ha... proof from your precious Hutton report that Blair lied in relation to a key element of his argument for going to war - lol

No proof whatsoever.

So when Briefed in detail Blair said that the 45 minutes related to weapons of mass destruction he would already have known that it actually related to small arms and not WMD. Either that, or he lied about being briefed in detail and being satisfied as to his briefing's authority.

That is just one small thing that came out during Hutton... how many other things lie under the surface of the DISGUSTING manipulation towards war and bloodshed.

Other little tidbits...

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html

Perhaps you will now explain HOW being Bush's Poodle has been a benefit to our economy to the extent that it was worth all that bloodshed?

If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.

[Nocturnalist!]

politics is all about manipulation and compromise, good luck finding a politician that does neither.

Yes.

Its New Labour who is contending Blair didn't lie

[Nocturnalist!]

But Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons, Nocturnalist.  He deployed them against the Kurds in 1998 as part of the Anfal campaign, when more than 100,000 men disappeared, 4,000 villages were destroyed, and 60 more villages were subject to chemical weapons attack.

I'm aware of that. The matter is regarding WMD when the second Gulf war was planned by the UK and USA against Iraq.

I know Saddam was an evil tyrant who wouldn't flinch at using WMD... but the fact is that the war was sold to the UK by our Government on the WMD angle while no WMD actually existed at that time in Iraq. Blair basically said 'trust me'... and he was either lying through his teeth for an alterior motive (something SovaNu willingly and correctly offers is not at all foreign to politicians), suckered by Bush and co, or irresponsible (taking us into a war without being well informed).

So which is it to be 'New Labour' (NL)... keeping your ignorant blinkers on while Brown is busy changing your name to New Old Labour - lol.

I cannot believe that you have actually tried arguing earlier that thousands upon thousands of violent deaths caused by the Second Gulf War and occupation of Iraq is good value for the British economy (Blair poodling after Bush). That sort of thinking is just plain criminally vile, NL. It displays and awfully deficient grasp of simple morality.

[Nocturnalist!]

If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.

What has that got to do with what you said about the British economy in relation to Blair's poodling?

You might be too blind to understand or accept the evidence I offerred, but at least I made some effort. You've made none.

Come on, give me a link to where stopping Bush from bombing Al-Jazzera directly benefits the UK economically. Like Brown you seem to cast a lot of blind assertions but actually dodge answering questions, or even attempting to.

[Nocturnalist!]

At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.

Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.

Ah, so you are saying Blair is not responsible for what he says. Blair is just some sort of zombie or robot who has no responsibility as to how he is used.

Blair was either lying, or civil servants were lying through Blair and even though his name is on the words, he is not responsible for being foolish enough to say them.

Is that what you are saying NL?

[Nocturnalist!]

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/05/29/leaked-uk-report-supplies-more-proof-that-bush-blair-lied-in-run-up-to-war/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/diplomats-suppressed-document-lays-bare-the-lies-behind-iraq-war-428545.html

I also note, you completely side-stepped the two other matters that I linked to. Probably didn't even look at them.

[Christopher McCandless]

If you want an example on how helpful our involvement was - read up on Bush nearly bombing Al-Jazzera.

What has that got to do with what you said about the British economy in relation to Blair's poodling?

I have access to pretty much every academic search engine - if you want me to pull out the evidence on my side then I could do it easily. At present I lack the time however.

You might be too blind to understand or accept the evidence I offerred, but at least I made some effort. You've made none.

Two opinion articles - neither of which provide direct evidence that Blair wilfully lied.

Come on, give me a link to where stopping Bush from bombing Al-Jazzera directly benefits the UK economically. Like Brown you seem to cast a lot of blind assertions but actually dodge answering questions, or even attempting to.

What do you think would have happened if he had bombed Al-Jazzera? Another terror attack or two perhaps. Any idiot can find out how much they cost.

[Christopher McCandless]

At Hutton, Blair adjusted himself and said that he did not know what the 45 minutes related to before the debate on 18 March last year. So he was lying about one of two points.

Lying - or just reading out a speech as prepared by his civil servants.

Ah, so you are saying Blair is not responsible for what he says. Blair is just some sort of zombie or robot who has no responsibility as to how he is used.

Blair was either lying, or civil servants were lying through Blair and even though his name is on the words, he is not responsible for being foolish enough to say them.

Or the civil servants were just inept. Seriously - do you think the PM has time to verify every fact he reads out - let alone any of them. Our current PM works 18 hour days as it is. What you are expecting of the PM is frankly ridiculous.