Oh, so it wasn't all about oil after all, then...

Saddam Hussein was in no way a direct threat to us in contrast to Hitler
in the years leading up to 1939

I have a paper somewhere written by a friend who teaches in the OU where
he went through, point by point , why it was not possible for Iraq to
possess the "WMD" claimed by Bliar (oops a spelling mistake). This was
presented to his MP several months before the invasion happened

I'll see if I can find it

 

If he believed that the intelligence was good, why did he have to dress it
all up in sales brochures?

"I and other Ministers have been briefed in detail on the intelligence and
are satisfied as to its authority(sic)."

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf

For the box-outs and the "Executive Summary" alone, surely no reasonable,
educated person could argue that Blair should not be horse-whipped?
Preferably through the streets, on his way to the gallows.

I'm sure you meant to put "cherry-picked" or "selectively edited" here.

I doubt there'll be a proper judicial inquiry, but they'll be picking over
the whole affair for decades.

 

More like *especially as Shrub said "Jump"*


--

Cheers!
Fr Jack
96 Tiger.
FRJACKUKRM AT GMAIL DOT COM
skype: fr.jack (without the dot)

 

We can't hold any politician accountable for sending us to war - not
technically speaking, anyway. It's Royal Perogative, you see. It's
the single most compelling reason for reforming the monarchy.

 

"How does it feel?"

 

You're half right: a soldier takes a soldier's chances. The other side
of the deal is that your superiors (officers or politicians) don't
waste your life, your legs or your sanity.

On top of that, it's the squaddy who signs up, not the wife and
children.

 

They swear allegiance to the crown.

As they refused to subvert Harold Wilson's government?

 

Not sure about 1936 but Churchill was out on his own before the war, his
warnings against dis-armament and the Nazis were mostly ignored. There
were probably quite a few others but they were swimming against the
tide, too many people had bad memories of the first war and wanted to
avoid another at almost any cost - including appeasement of a German
government that had already broken most of the terms imposed on it after
WWW1.

We'll never know but I'm pretty sure Iraq would have remained a Hell for
it's people without outside intervention. Saddam's sons were a real
couple of charmers and would have been at least as bad as their father -
if not worse.

I feel that Blair/Bush have done the right thing in the long term but
not for the reasons they gave. It seems to me that there is no integrity
amongst NuLabour - look at Mandelson FFS, sacked twice for
dishonesty/abuse of office, only in EU office a few months and he's off
cavorting with Microsoft on a private yacht when his department is in
the middle of a humongous legal battle with them. Is he stupid or corrupt?

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised that politicians lie.

 

Quite so. And you get your chance tomorrow.

 

I know many will understand their actions in respect of a tactical or
protest vote but I'd be wary of anything that could allow a Tory in.

Craven and self serving? You ain't seen nothing yet...

 

There's a Tory - Tony pact going on here. Tony, by talking up the threat
from the Tories, makes them look like a credible opposition again, and
scares people off voting for the party which opposes Tonies policies on ID
cars and american style militarism.

I hope lots of people vote LibDem tomorrow, they'd be a more refreshing
opposition than the lacklustre clapped out twats currently fulfilling the
role.

 

sweller says...

I'll probably vote Lib Dem[1] not because I particularly want them in but
feel that a Labour government with a much reduced majority and a Lib Dem
opposition would be the best compromise.

[1] Our constituency (Stone) is about as true blue as you can get
unfortunately.

 

Is that the Stone just outside Aylesbury?

 

Krusty says...

The one in Staffordshire.

 

The Independent on Saturday gave it's whole front page to an analysis
by a well regarded psepholoist which demonstrated that there are
almost no circumstances under which a swing to the Lib Dems will give
the Tories a majority of seats. The "If 1 in 10 labour voters switch
to LibDem you'll wake up with Micheal Howard on Friday [1]" being
trotted out by every labour campaigner is just plain wrong.

[1] Jesus what a thought, tho.

 

Look at who he wakes up with.

 

Ben Blaney wrote

Not really no. See queenie takes "advice" from her
PM and acts on it is what happens. TB told to go to war and she did the
right constitutional thing so it is not her fault at all.

I am not as in favour of that bit of the revolution any more. I have
moved to a sort of, better the pointless, archaic, and not that
expensive, devil that you know rather than Blur as all powerful,
expensive, president.

 

mups wrote

That is utter fucking bollox that is. My constituency is truer bluer
than yours an is beaten in blueouscity only by Redbridge Ultras.

 

I know, I know - how did he manage that, eh?