Blair dodges another bullet

[jjwq8]

Don't know if you noticed or even care about the Hutton enquiry into the Dr. David Kelly Suicide, but the upshot is that Blair and the British Government were let off the hook by the enquiry's conclusions and Blair immediately trumpted his victory to the House, literally within minutes of Hutton finishing his news conference.

What Blair slickly avoided were Hutton's very pointed remarks that the entire issue of WMD in Iraq was beyond the remit of his enquiry and that his findings found the government were not at fault under the evidence under consideration, namely the famous dossier citing Saddams 45 minute ability to launch WMD. He had not considered the wider issue of WMD.

There was a call in the House for a public enquiry given the evidence now available, specifically the complete lack of evidence available now, and Blair basically flipped the finger and told his detractors to eat crow.

[Sponsored Links]

[Steven Hauser]

:nya:,

Double jeopardy?
Steven

[John Bridge]

Well, you know the same thing is happening here. Bush says things to the effect that even though WMDs may not have existed, Saddam was still a very dangerous character and posed a mounting threat to the U.S. and to the world. Just makes me want to throw up. :)

[Hobbit]

Well now.......In the interest of debate and fair play I am going to post some quotes from U.S. political figures. Since JB runs a strictly non-sectarian, non-denominational, non-political forum, I know this insightful information will be well received. ;)


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998


"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998


"Iraqi is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."

- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998


"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U. S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens.
Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998


"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA),Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."

- Madeline Albright, Clinton's Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a elicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."

- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."

- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI),Sept. 19, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."

- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002


"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA),Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."

- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV),Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA),Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV),Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA),Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY),Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."

- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL),Dec. 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction..... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."

- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:




:):)

[John Bridge]

Howard,

Are you mistakenly taking me for a Democrat? Or for a Clintonite?

It doesn't matter what anyone has said up until now, really. It doesn't even matter what Bush and Powell said before now, I suppose. What is intresting here is what is NOT being said now. What is not being said is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

I've been asking a simple question all through this mess. Where is the threat? Where WAS the threat?

And yes, you are correct. I espouse freedom of speech and the "free marketplace of ideas." It's still a free country. ;)

[Hobbit]

JB.......

I believe that I understand your political stance and I certainly respect it. And I was most certainly not accusing you of being a Democrat (or anything else for that matter!!). Nor was I putting words in your mouth (or anyone's!).:)

The post wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. It was, I thought, appropriate to point out that anyone who points a finger at Bush's administration with respect to this particular fiasco of foreign policy, should at least be aware that the bellicose stance did not originate with him. In fact, Iraq (and to a lesser extent, Syria, Lebanon and Iran) has been a whipping post in the middle east through many years of policy making decisions.

Understand, I am not trying to separate right from wrong here. Just point out, in the interest of fairness, that the thought process behind political policy making and decisions frequently takes many years and muddles through many minds before it comes to fruition.




:):)

[jjwq8]

Howard, John.

The most compelling statement is right in front of us. The final quote from John Kerry.

Saddam's ability to deceive. He deceived everyone into beleiving he possessed that which he did not because he rationalized (?) that he was safer having his enemies believe the threat. Yet another miscalculation.

He was forgetting that the 51st and many would argue the most powerful state in the union, capitol Tel Aviv/Jerusalem/Wherever, was directly threatened, thereby the other 50 states were under equal threat.

Any notion that US foreign policy in the Mid East is not tailored to the very specific interests of the Zionist state is blind and a lie.

[jjwq8]

Plucked from the Aunty's own pages:

"Andrew Gilligan has said a "grave injustice" has been dealt to the BBC as he resigned following criticism directed at him in the Hutton report.
He said Lord Hutton's findings "cast a chill over all journalism".
"If Lord Hutton had fairly considered the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was right," the reporter added.
Meanwhile many BBC staff have backed former director general Greg Dyke in an advertisement in the Daily Telegraph.
Thousands of employees have put their names to a statement which says they are dismayed at his departure.

But they say they are determined to maintain Mr Dyke's vision of the BBC as an independent organisation, serving the public.
Shock
Both Mr Dyke, who resigned on Thursday, and Mr Gilligan, said they did not accept all of Lord Hutton's report.
Mr Gilligan, 35, conceded he had made mistakes and apologised for them, but defended the bulk of his story.
He said the BBC's punishment was "far out of proportion to its or my mistakes, which were honest ones".

"This report casts a chill over all journalism, not just the BBC's.
"It seeks to hold reporters, with all the difficulties they face, to a standard that it does not appear to demand of, for instance, government dossiers."
Earlier, Mr Dyke said the report shocked him.
Downing Street said it had "nothing to say" on Mr Gilligan's departure.
Former Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell also declined to comment when told about the news during the opening night of his "one man show" in South Shields.
Earlier Mark Byford, the acting director general, said the corporation recognised that it had made errors.

He told BBC Two's Newsnight programme: "The BBC says it recognises it has made mistakes and we also recognise that Lord Hutton's report is a matter of some difference of opinion.
"The BBC will debate those opinions, but the BBC will not have a view on the Hutton report itself."
Mr Byford is leading an internal inquiry into what went wrong and the steps needed to ensure it does not happen again.
BBC director of news Richard Sambrook sent an e-mail to all staff saying he will be working with Mr Byford, senior editors and news managers to look at ways to rebuild trust in the corporation. "

[jjwq8]

The Aunty is today outdoing herself. Just aired an analysis titled "With Friends Like These", that is a dispassionate review of the "special relationship" between London and Washington. Catch it if you get the opportunity.

[Steven Hauser]

Jeremy,

What is Auntie?

I was about to comment on the other post. However upon thought, I felt it better to do a little more research first.

Steven:confused:

[John Bridge]

So Howard, you're saying I can't call a spade a spade unless I name all predecessor spades in the naming process? I realize this thing goes back a bit, but it doesn't change what Bush has said and done.

Bush said there was no question Saddam had WMDs and was about to use them, posing a huge security threat to the United States. This comprised his justification for going to war against Iraq. He also said that bin Laden and Saddam were in cahoots, and this further justified deposing Saddam.

Now that is has been pretty well shown that none of the above was true, Bush says, well, it was still a good idea to invade Iraq if for no other reason than that Saddam was a bad guy. I and others said at the very start of this fiasco that there are a number of bad guys in the region and in North Africa. And as a matter of fact we now know that Khadafi was more of a threat using Bush's own gauge. Khadafi did indeed have some WMDs or the programs to produce them. And the Iranians have without question both WMDs and the missiles with which to deploy them. Why don't we go in and bomb the shit out of them, too?

I know this is not history. I'm sorry we got into it, but it seems to me no matter how much proof is rendered to the contrary, Bush still comes out smelling like a Rose and Blair along with him. And we have I don't know how many people deployed in a country that doesn't want us, a country that doesn't want self-government. The whole thing sickens me.

[jjwq8]

The Aunty is the BBC aka Aunty Beeb.
Derivation?
Not a clue:D

[flatfloor]

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." John Kerry

In his defense Kerry now says....well, I didn't think he would use it. :rolleyes:

[Mike2]

In his defense Kerry now says....well, I didn't think he would use it. :rolleyes:

:shades: Preview of coming attractions:...given Hobbit's collection of quotes....the back peddling has just begun.

[jjwq8]

For all the fact the GW is universally depicted as a dummy and Tony is granted as having the smarts, I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if there is a resignation it will be Blair's. GW wasn't dumb enough to hang his war bonnet solely on the WMD issue. Unlike his bestest pal.

In the recent debate in Parliament, John Howard, leader of the Opposition, questioned why on Sunday, Tony had declared that a formal inquiry was unnecessary, contrary to Mr. Howards urging, yet on Monday, magically one was now deemed advantageous.

Howard went on to say that he did not for one moment believe that the change of heart was the result of his good offices but rather a reflection of Realpolitik; where GW leads Tony follows. Raising once again the spectre of Tony as GW's poodle. :yeah:

[John K]

Jeremy, John.

Let us just forget the politics for a moment and look at the strategic side of this war. Do you think we would have been better off basically keeping Saddam surrounded and contained in his country? Or will history show that invasion was the best method?

I suppose in the event that we went with the containment approach we could have launched from Kuwait and the Jews could have launched attack from Israel. In the event that Saddam challenged us as he did in 1991. Any thoughts?:)

[jjwq8]

Involving the Jews would be absolute suicide for your plans.

What you are now seeing is precisely what Saddam was so good at surpressing.

I know for a fact that even days before the war, Saddam and his sons were burning up the phone lines with their intermediaries offering the US the entire pie provided they were left alone to do their thing. Mounting casualties may very well lead to 20:20 hindsight.

[sdaniels7114]

I wonder what would happen if we could take control of the weather and just impose a Hawaiian-type climate on the entire Middle East, never higher than 82 degreesF or lower than 78, and whatever the "correct" amount of rainfall is. I'd bet that within a decade or so they'd be wondering just what it was that they were so PO'd about for so long. I don't think religion is nearly as big a factor as we've been led to believe. It's just too d@mn hot there, and there's not enough water.

I may be short-sighted, but I'm beginning to think that democracy in Iraq is about as likely as weather-control equipment.

[flatfloor]

Arabs have lived under feudal/medevial systems for thousands of years. You don't learn democracy overnight.

What I don't understand is why the people who supposedly want democracy are not doing anything to help themselves.

Japan and Germany were not converted overnight, there were similar incidents in both countries after WW II that continued for 7-8 years after the war was over.

[jjwq8]

Who said this forum wasn't enlightened?:D
Iraq has a large desert, it also has vast farmlands and plenty of water, though not by way of rain.

In its thousands of years of history there is not a single recorded instance of a peaceful exchange of executive control in Iraq.

Democracy in the "western" sense will never work. In a large degree, Iraq is much like Yugoslavia under Tito, held together by simple force of will. It demands a dictator.

M has been watching in horror at what is happening to her homeland. Though in truth she has been predicting this scenario since day 1.

Dubya and Rumsfeld have at least learned some of the Lincoln Doctrine. They have now managed to piss-off all of the people all of the time, and they are expecting the Army handle the diplomacy as well :shake:

[LadyGodiva]

JJ, who is M? I've been following your posts but somehow missed an explanation for the famous "M":shades:

Care to enlighten me?:D

[jjwq8]

The Devine M = Magda Shamoun Markos of the Family Al Khoury, supplier of various bods of paticular inport to numerous administrations in Iraq, numbering amongst their alumni, a Chief Justice, the Chairman of the Iraq Communists (one of the very rare survivors of the Abu Ghreib prison in Baghdad), a Surgeon General, the current Patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox Church, a recent very well known ex foreign minister, and most importantly, the beat of my heart. :D :D :yummy: :yipee: :dance: :bow: :D :D

[flatfloor]

Also SWMBO :D

[John K]

Hi Jeremy,

What is your prediction on how this whole Iraq thing will play out?:)

[jjwq8]

Jeeeezass John,

The start of the week and you're asking me to think!

Be nice and leave me alone till next weekend :D

Right now I wouldn't care to say but dollars to doughnuts it will be nothing like 1600 Pennsylvania Ave expects.

I am actually intrigued that the trumpeted force for democratic change has been more or less shelved.

I guess the gnomes have seen what they have wrought and decided that for the time being they had best leave well enough alone, coz Iraq will repeat as many times as Democracy is attempted in the Middle East.

The reason Israel is a democracy is that prior to 1948 it didn't exist and it's founding fathers, immigrants to a man, each came from a country with democratic traditions of its own, so it was not an alien abstraction that was being imposed upon an indigenous electorate.

[flatfloor]

Local outbreaks against British rule had occurred even before the news reached Iraq that the country had been given only mandate status. Upon the death of an important Shia mujtahid (religious scholar) in early May 1920, Sunni and Shia ulama temporarily put aside their differences as the memorial services metamorphosed into political rallies. Ramadan, the Islamic month of fasting, began later in that month; once again, through nationalistic poetry and oratory, religious leaders exhorted the people to throw off the bonds of imperialism. Violent demonstrations and strikes followed the British arrest of several leaders.

When the news of the mandate reached Iraq in late May, a group of Iraqi delegates met with Wilson and demanded independence. Wilson dismissed them as a "handful of ungrateful politicians." Nationalist political activity was stepped up, and the grand mujtahid of Karbala, Imam Shirazi, and his son, Mirza Muhammad Riza, began to organize the effort in earnest. Arab flags were made and distributed, and pamphlets were handed out urging the tribes to prepare for revolt. Muhammad Riza acted as liaison among insurgents in An Najaf and in Karbala, and the tribal confederations. Shirazi then issued a fatwa (religious ruling), pointing out that it was against Islamic law for Muslims to countenance being ruled by non-Muslims, and he called for a jihad against the British. By July 1920, Mosul was in rebellion against British rule, and the insurrection moved south down the Euphrates River valley. The southern tribes, who cherished their long-held political autonomy, needed little inducement to join in the fray. They did not cooperate in an organized effort against the British, however, which limited the effect of the revolt. The country was in a state of anarchy for three months; the British restored order only with great difficulty and with the assistance of Royal Air Force bombers. British forces were obliged to send for reinforcements from India and from Iran.

Ath Thawra al Iraqiyya al Kubra, or The Great Iraqi Revolution (as the 1920 rebellion is called), was a watershed event in contemporary Iraqi history. For the first time, Sunnis and Shias, tribes and cities, were brought together in a common effort. In the opinion of Hanna Batatu, author of a seminal work on Iraq, the building of a nation-state in Iraq depended upon two major factors: the integration of Shias and Sunnis into the new body politic and the successful resolution of the age-old conflicts between the tribes and the riverine cities and among the tribes themselves over the food-producing flatlands of the Tigris and the Euphrates. The 1920 rebellion brought these groups together, if only briefly; this constituted an important first step in the long and arduous process of forging a nation-state out of Iraq's conflict-ridden social structure.

The 1920 revolt had been very costly to the British in both manpower and money. Whitehall was under domestic pressure to devise a formula that would provide the maximum control over Iraq at the least cost to the British taxpayer. The British replaced the military regime with a provisional Arab government, assisted by British advisers and answerable to the supreme authority of the high commissioner for Iraq, Cox. The new administration provided a channel of communication between the British and the restive population, and it gave Iraqi leaders an opportunity to prepare for eventual self-government. The provisional government was aided by the large number of trained Iraqi administrators who returned home when the French ejected Faisal from Syria. Like earlier Iraqi governments, however, the provisional government was composed chiefly of Sunni Arabs; once again the Shias were underrepresented.

At the Cairo Conference of 1921, the British set the parameters for Iraqi political life that were to continue until the 1958 revolution...



Last Update: December 16, 2000

www.onwar.com aced@onwar.com

Bold print by me, now add oil to the problem. If I understand correctly much of the oil is in an area inhabited by Kurds.

My solution? Split the godforsaken hell hole into three, Sunni, Shiite and an independant Kurd state with our boot heel firmly on their necks. Lawrence of Arabia Governor General of the region. for life.

[John Bridge]

"What I don't understand is why the people who supposedly want democracy are not doing anything to help themselves.
"

One of the things in history I do really know about is the birth of our style of democracy or republicanism. It was not that the masses in this country were clamoring for "a republican form of government." It was rather that the leaders of the pack sold themselves on the idea and sold it to the masses in turn.

The stickling point in Iraq is that none of the leaders wants a republican form of governemt (Western style democracy). You won't be able to sell it to them. They would have to invent it themselves as our founders did and as the English did for themselves across the pond. :)

(Albeit, the Brit version isn't exactly republicanism, but it accomplishes the same goal -- representative government. :) )

[jjwq8]

Jim,
I will agree with you that the current version of the land between the rivers may be designated a hell-hole, but it is not a descriptor befitting the country at any other time.

Splitting the country would be a recipe for disaster and history would certainly condemn the US led coaltition were that ever to happen.

[flatfloor]

JJ, I was speaking half in jest but you are correct.

Actually we should give the place back to Sadaam with apologies...sorry about the kids. ;)

John, I have often asked the same question...where the hell are the "freedom loving" Iraqi people? What are they doing for themselves?

[jjwq8]

Freedom loving Iraqis don't live in Iraq. Never have.

Iraq has always been the subject of authoritarian rule, either indigenous or colonial.

There are no freedom loving Iraqs at home because political freedom is a completely alien concept.

If you listen to the plebs all they are interested in is security and a job. They could care less who runs the country provided that the big banana is Iraqi and is not one selected for them by somone (non Iraqi) else.

Give it to the Iraqi military to run, coz sure as eggs they will have to do it sooner rather than later.

[Steven Hauser]

Uh Jeremy,

Would that be a Kurd, Sunni, or Shiate running the military hmmm.. maybe a representative military?

:D

[jjwq8]

I forget, where did Saddam say he came from? :D