Reply to: Blair takes the stand..

[Paddy]

The words of Blair

“9/11changed everything. It was one of the reasons why the British and Americans invaded Iraq. Because Saddam had links with al-Qa'ida, so said the Americans,and might give them [al-Qa’ida] weapons of mass destruction,”

Blair contradicts himself:

“Post Invasion, people did not think that al-Qa'ida and Iran would play the role that they did. (in other words there was no al-Qa'ida before the invasion.”

“We didn't kill 100,000 Iraqis It was the terrorists, al-Qa'ida,”

"It's a constant problem for Israel," he informed us. "They use great force in retaliation. Before you've gone two weeks, they're [Palestinians] the people that started it all."

"conversations with Israelis". What? Israelis? At the critical Crawford meeting? Israel was the only nation – apart from the US and Britain – that totally supported the war, indeed encouraged it.”

[EternalOptimist]

Listening to the radio, that just about sums it up. I thought it was a pretty polished performance from Mr Blair.

Much as I hate to say it, he does come across rather well...

thats why we have judges. To see through the words and to make a judgement.

Unfortunately its usually its history that judges (in this country), so we wont see the bsterd swing. Unlike old Sadaam, who swung quite well.


And for all the tits who say Sadaam was a bad man and deserved to be toppled, feel free to join the army and lobby for a war against China, or Russia, or ...... well the list is too long

[Fred Bloggs]

Listening to the radio, that just about sums it up. I thought it was a pretty polished performance from Mr Blair.

Much as I hate to say it, he does come across rather well...

Don't be taken in by the trembling lip and the furrowed brow. This is a very, very finely honed lying machine you are witnessing. This man wouldn't recognise the truth if it was in the shape of a supertanker that ran him over.

[Paddy]

Listening to the radio, that just about sums it up. I thought it was a pretty polished performance from Mr Blair.

Much as I hate to say it, he does come across rather well...

Before going into politics Tony Blair was a barrister. He job was to bend the truth to its maximum and avoid outright lying. He knows how to make a speech in order to take in the gullible twelve members of the jury or as it is now, the public.

[ratewhore]

The most you are going to get out of him is "maybe we got a few things wrong but I stand by the war based upon the intelligence given to us at the time".

Covers all the bases really.

Listening to the radio, that just about sums it up. I thought it was a pretty polished performance from Mr Blair.

Much as I hate to say it, he does come across rather well...

[EC4N]

The fate of Iraq was arleady articulated using a few sentences in the 'Axis of evil' speech authored by Bush's speech writer the Zionist Neocon - David Frum. No surprises if Iran is next in line as it couldn't escape the paragraph.

[Sysman]

That was weird. Trying to watch it on BBC World News and my digital TV box crashed. Never had that happen before.

[Spacecadet]

How dumb are you NorthWestPerm2Contr?!

Put it this way... he's very very good on the banjo

[swamp]

Blair is the man as far as I am concerned.

...

As far Saddam being an ally of Al Qaida/Iran: Firstly how dumb are you?

Doggy Styles said:

Saddam was an ally against fundamentalists like Al Quaeda and Iran

How dumb are you NorthWestPerm2Contr?!

[NorthWestPerm2Contr]

1. Saddam's attrocities against the Kurds and the swamp people were mostly pre-1991. Since then he had been handcuffed by the weapons inspectors and no-fly zones.
2. Long before the 2003 invasion, the inspectors were saying they could find no evidence that he had any WMDs left.
3. Saddam was an ally against fundamentalists like Al Quaeda and Iran, who are both far greater threats to the UK and the west than he ever was.

Given this, and Blair knew it all at the time, invading Iraq and deposing Saddam shows a terrible lack of judgement.

I believe Blair's motivation was his "moment in history", like Thatcher got with the Falklands and Churchill got with WW2. What seems to have passed him by is that they didn't pick their fights.

He should be rightly reviled for his part in Iraq. It's all very well claiming he did what he believed was right, but so did many of history's worst despots (like Saddam himself). At best Blair is a foolish man.

Blair is the man as far as I am concerned.

Every Iraqi I have spoken to (there are plenty around where I live) said keeping saddam would have meant loads more mass graves and they are so thankful for getting rid of him.

Also Saddam regularly tortured and killed people in his country be they shia, sunni, kurd or christian. The guy didn't really care so long as you didn't agree with him 100% then out comes your tongue, liver and off goes your head.

As far Saddam being an ally of Al Qaida/Iran: {EDITED OUT}
Iran = Media Hype - no suicide bombers or terrorists are iranian. All nonsense.

Invading Iraq got rid of the worst human on earth. Well done blair

[Doggy Styles]

1. Saddam's attrocities against the Kurds and the swamp people were mostly pre-1991. Since then he had been handcuffed by the weapons inspectors and no-fly zones.
   
2. Long before the 2003 invasion, the inspectors were saying they could find no evidence that he had any WMDs left.
   
3. Saddam was an ally against fundamentalists like Al Quaeda and Iran, who are both far greater threats to the UK and the west than he ever was.

Given this, and Blair knew it all at the time, invading Iraq and deposing Saddam shows a terrible lack of judgement.

I believe Blair's motivation was his "moment in history", like Thatcher got with the Falklands and Churchill got with WW2. What seems to have passed him by is that they didn't pick their fights.

He should be rightly reviled for his part in Iraq. It's all very well claiming he did what he believed was right, but so did many of history's worst despots (like Saddam himself). At best Blair is a foolish man.

[VectraMan]

3) As for hiding the weapons, I remember Powell showing powerpoints to the UN telling everyone the US knew EXACTLY where the weapons were hidden/being moved to.

I remember that well. I wasn't very convinced at the time, and obviously I was right not to be convinced.

Blair seems to be taking the line that it was a judgement call that he had to make based on the likely risks, not that the evidence was clear. Which is fair enough, but that doesn't stop the fact that it was probably illegal under international law, that he didn't have the right to be making that call without international support, and that he was arrogant in believing he must be right when France, Germany, Russia etc. were all of a different view.

[sal626]

The fact that for three years the world screamed at Sadam's use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people (Different Ethnic tribes) was televised worldwide. showing villages full of dead men women and children. Women laying dead in the streets clutching dead babies after being gassed by Sadam's troops. Iran complaining to the UN about Sadam using poison gas on Iranian troops and televising pictures. Sadam wiping out Kurdish villages with poison gas and nerve toxins.

Of course, this is no evidence of Iraq's possession of these weapons is it?

Oh yes! They hanged Sadam's henchman last week for gassing 50,000 villagers. isn't gas, a weapon of mass destruction?

Of course, as they couldn't find where they'd hidden the weapons in the thousands of square miles of desert., the attack on Iraq must have been wrong

A few points

1) USA was happy to sell Saddam chemicals to gas his own people. Rumsfeld visited him after he had gassed his own people and was happy to extend further lines of credit.
2) Since 1990, there has been the most extensive inspection regime EVER conducted. This accounted for all of the weapons – many chemical weapons had already by passed the “use by” date.
3) As for hiding the weapons, I remember Powell showing powerpoints to the UN telling everyone the US knew EXACTLY where the weapons were hidden/being moved to.

[lilelvis2000]

The fact that for three years the world screamed at Sadam's use of weapons of mass destruction on his own people (Different Ethnic tribes) was televised worldwide. showing villages full of dead men women and children. Women laying dead in the streets clutching dead babies after being gassed by Sadam's troops. Iran complaining to the UN about Sadam using poison gas on Iranian troops and televising pictures. Sadam wiping out Kurdish villages with poison gas and nerve toxins.

Of course, this is no evidence of Iraq's possession of these weapons is it?

Oh yes! They hanged Sadam's henchman last week for gassing 50,000 villagers. isn't gas, a weapon of mass destruction?

Of course, as they couldn't find where they'd hidden the weapons in the thousands of square miles of desert., the attack on Iraq must have been wrong

Wasn't Iraq buddy buddy with the USA at that time? They - NATO - invaded kosovo to prevent genocide, strange how they didn't invade Iraq to prevent further genocide.

[suityou01]

I'm more worried about what they'll do so it isn't the main thing on the evening news.

Threaded, you have gone up in my estimation. Delightful piece of cynicism. Well done.

I read recently on one of my tin foil hat sites that one theory is the Haiti earthquate was man made using a seismic weapon / tectonic weapon.