British general urges Tony Blair impeachement

[Mailman]

The people nearest to the truth are the weapons inspectors. They know what the evidence was. If I recall correctly, they said they couldn't find anything.

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

Also, if you would bother yourself to read the reports issued by the ISG you will see that in both reports, regardless of what the anti-war goons will have you believe, the ISG clearly stated that 1. a state sponsored blackmarket in WMD material was about to take root, and 2. that the removal of WMD material to Syria could not be ruled out.

I also find interesting is that there have already been 6 or 7 public hearings in to Iraq and none of them have said the Government has done anything wrong.

What really makes me laugh are the goons who keep on calling for hearings and the like because eventually they will get what they want. Its all about the numbers! If you have 100 hearings you are eventually going to get one to go your way arent you!

Mailman

[stackpole]

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

"WASHINGTON, April 2005 - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."

This is well known and reported all over the internet media.

Also, if you would bother yourself to read the reports issued by the ISG you will see that in both reports, regardless of what the anti-war goons will have you believe, the ISG clearly stated that 1. a state sponsored blackmarket in WMD material was about to take root, and 2. that the removal of WMD material to Syria could not be ruled out.

And if you bothered to read those two assertions carefully, you will realise that the first is supposition, and the second meaningless. Neither is the slightest evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction or any components thereof in Iraq.

On the contrary, the final ISG report 30 September 2004 actually says, and I quote: "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 (when the coallition invaded) and had no production since 1991." They could not rule out future intent, but neither could they do that for any other nation on Earth.

On the subject of Syria, the addendum March 2005 Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq concludes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place".

I also find interesting is that there have already been 6 or 7 public hearings in to Iraq and none of them have said the Government has done anything wrong.

In fact there have been four separate inquiries into different aspects of the Iraq war, including the Butler report into intelligence failings and the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

But there has yet to be an inquiry focusing on the way the government's decision to join a US-led invasion was made, which is the most serious, and what this is all about.

[expat]

DA in "maybe I am not always right" mode

Bloody hell dodgy, is that mode allowed here?

[wendigo100]

Slippery as an eel, that Tony Blair.

John Scarlet, the MI6 bloke who helped Blair concoct the "case for war", was thereafter promoted to head of services, so he'll keep schtum.

[ratewhore]

I find it interesting Sir Michael Rose states in the article that he wouldnt lead troops into a war he believed was wrong.

I'm not sure when he was a serving officer he had the ability to make that decision. The armed forces serve wherever they are told to by the government of the day whether or not they agree with the aims and objectives.

Overall though, I agree with his statements.

[AtW]

Actually...the only reason they couldnt find anything was because Saddam wouldnt let them any where near the sites they wanted to check!

He allowed them to visit any place - the only thing he objected was visiting his own palaces without warning, just how exactly Saddam was supposed to hide manufacturing of nukes in his palaces is still the mistery, IMO this demand was a deliberate insult to make him either agree and be humiliated or deny and get accused of hiding WMD.

The important thing is facts - no WMDs were found, so clearly they did not exist.

[AlfredJPruffock]

"WASHINGTON, April 2005 - In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion."

This is well known and reported all over the internet media.And if you bothered to read those two assertions carefully, you will realise that the first is supposition, and the second meaningless. Neither is the slightest evidence that there were any weapons of mass destruction or any components thereof in Iraq.

On the contrary, the final ISG report 30 September 2004 actually says, and I quote: "Iraq had no deployable WMD of any kind as of March 2003 (when the coallition invaded) and had no production since 1991." They could not rule out future intent, but neither could they do that for any other nation on Earth.

On the subject of Syria, the addendum March 2005 Prewar Movement of WMD Material Out of Iraq concludes "it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place".In fact there have been four separate inquiries into different aspects of the Iraq war, including the Butler report into intelligence failings and the Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly.

But there has yet to be an inquiry focusing on the way the government's decision to join a US-led invasion was made, which is the most serious, and what this is all about.

The notion that Iraq would have shipped out his non existant WMDs to Syria, without a shred of proof to support this is risible.

If Iraq had them , then the whole point of having them is to USE them when the security of the State is threatened.

I mentioned this before the conflict, clearly the US was absolutely certain Iraq did not have WMDs, for no millitary general would have deployed 100s of thousands of troops sited in readiness to invade a county which could have in turn used WMDs to destroy those troops,period.

[BlasterBates]

There's a huge flaw in these arguments as if its all about right and wrong.

..well its all about having bigger weapons than the other guy.

The guy with the big weapon is always right.

[Captain Jack]

The guy with the big weapon is always right.

I can vouch for that.

[EternalOptimist]

I mentioned this before the conflict, clearly the US was absolutely certain Iraq did not have WMDs, for no millitary general would have deployed 100s of thousands of troops sited in readiness to invade a county which could have in turn used WMDs to destroy those troops,period.

sorry Alf

mustard gas in WWI
the germans had nerve gas in WWII.
the allies had nerve gas in WWII
Sadaam had nerve gas in the first gulf war

etc etc

Your argument does not stand up to the facts. Armies HAVE been deployed in the face of these weapons