It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
It is a betrayal. Blair represents a constituency, as do his MPs. The majority of the country did not want to go into Iraq.
He lied to parliament, he lied to the press and he lied to the people.
The Hutton whitewash was just the icing on Bush's 'More Oil' cake.
edit: I do believe in a strong trans-atlantic alliance though, we could perhaps have taken up a similar stance as the US did during the Falklands invasion.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Given Bush's 'unique' "with us or against us" stance I believe the atlantic alliance would have been seriously damaged and may not have survived in it's present good shape had the UK gov told Bush to do one.
You cannot simply assert that there is a majority against the Iraqi war. You have no evidence for this at all, merely anecdotal.
10th April 2002: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked
25th March 2003: I have always said to people throughout that our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. [...] We have absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist
4th April 2004: We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. [...]. You can never find these things unless you have the cooperation of the regime itself, and once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them.
14th July 2004: We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq.
But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy.
Lord Hutton produced the whitewash that the British Government
and intelligence agencies would have expected of him when
appointed by Tony Blair to carry out the inquiry.
LONDON, England -- Much of Britain's press has lashed out at the judge who cleared the UK government of any wrongdoing over the suicide of an Iraqi weapons expert, accusing Lord Hutton of a "whitewash" and questioning whether justice was really served.
Given Bush's 'unique' "with us or against us" stance I believe the atlantic alliance would have been seriously damaged and may not have survived in it's present good shape had the UK gov told Bush to do one
Originally posted by Chris McGee
We could have helped out with diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations. We went into afghanistan with them (justly) Just because President Bush says jump, we don't have to go and help him invade somewhere. Is the death of British citizens a fair price to pay for getting co-operation on Israel and Palestine?
There were numerous polls taken (as you know) that showed we were against this action.
Some quotes from Blair:
10th April 2002: Saddam Hussein's regime is despicable, he is developing weapons of mass destruction, and we cannot leave him doing so unchecked
25th March 2003: I have always said to people throughout that our aim has not been regime change, our aim has been the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. [...] We have absolutely no doubt at all that these weapons of mass destruction exist
4th April 2004: We have got absolutely no doubt that these weapons exist. [...]. You can never find these things unless you have the cooperation of the regime itself, and once we have the cooperation of the scientists and the experts, I have got no doubt that we will find them.
14th July 2004: We expected, I expected to find actual usable, chemical or biological weapons after we entered Iraq.
But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy.
I will (possibly) concede that he did not directly lie about the WMD (he is a lawyer after all :-) ) but he certainly misled parliament and the British people.
Whether or not he did it deliberately or not is down to whether he is a liar or incompetent (or both).
Some nice reading about the Hutton whitewash:
Lord Hutton may have acted in good faith, or he may not have.
I do believe he was chosen for his 'establishment' credentials and was given a very narrow mandate in which to work which restricted his investigation. Even taking that into account, it was absolutely diabolical that the entire government should escape any blame at all for this fiasco.
I'm not saying we should tell him to do one, see my first point above.
As for the cheap shot about Tories, we were just trying to look for a 'third way' to get through it.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I will conceed that there have been numerous polls taken showing a general public deeply anxious about Britains involvement in the Iraqi war and I will also agree that many Britains are against the war simply because of G Bush jr.
However, these figures were slightly better for Tony Blair than those recorded by MORI two weeks earlier when - without the two conditions being satisfied - support stood at 24 per cent and opposition at 67 per cent, a swing of plus three per cent.
Where is the deception here? This was absolutely the case. Hussein did not actually have the WMD's but he was doing his utmost to sustain the capacity to make them.
so despite the intel being fed to our gov - intel believed across the world - you will not accept that he could not have made this judgement in good faith?
Well Chris matey sharper and better qualified people than you have looked into this publicly, exhaustively and openly published the results of their enquiries and been unable to make this claim stick.
Nice choice, just those 2 options.
How about a 3rd? Acting in good faith based on the intel he had which later turned out to be flawed and unreliable?
So a bunch of tory papers and their tory MP mouth-pieces got their knickers in a twist because they didn't get the result they were all sure of getting (don't you recall the salivating expectation before Hutton, before Butler etc etc )
Ha! I'd love to see you make that claim to his face!
How fast do you imagine being sued to poverty for life?
Look mate you didn't get the result you wanted or expected. Politics huh? Get over it.
You said "diplomacy, logistics, medics and other non-combat operations".What you mean like France and Germany have done?
Not doing Iraq but helping out in Afghanistan with logistics, medics, non-combat operations and their armed forces (instead of diplomacy....which given Bushs' stance would have meant sweet FA anyway)?!
Yeah they were appreciated and haven't set back their relations with the US 'body politic' for decades, NOT!
- Sorry but it wasn't a "cheap shot" at all.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
I didn't say they were against the war because of President Bush. They were against the war.
There is a world of difference between developing WMD and sustaining the capacity to develop them, which there is also no evidence for. Please provide any evidence at all of sustained development programs.
Intel believed across the world? In France? Germany? Russia?
I will however accept that his judgement is flawed as is that of John Scarlett.
The government knew exactly what the outcome of these inquiries would be which is why Hutton was selected and given such a restrictive mandate. This is why the press were up in arms, W H I T E W A S H. Watch for Whitewash pt III in the Blunkett inquiry.
OK, a third, his judgement is flawed by messianic delusions.
His judgement is flawed through his religious bond with President Bush.
His judgement is flawed through his desire to be loved and accepted, praised and feted in the US.
The Sun went to town on this.
No problem, i'm meeting him for brunch on thursday, i'll tell him then.
No need, Gordon is taxing me into poverty for life.
Fair enough, the ref's blown, game's over, let's leave it for the 2nd leg.
I was actually talking about supplying help to US forces in Iraq (logistics, medics, non-combat operations) and trying to iron out some creases through diplomacy rather than sending troops to fight there.
Yes it was, the Tory party still support the war in Iraq but deplore the manner in which the government got us involved.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- I know you didn't Chris.
This is actually an excellent example of the crass and rather dangerous idiocy of the tory party's position in all this.
The fact remains that the bulk of the British public don't like Bush and many of those that are against the war are against it because of Bush and what they see as his highly selfish and unjustified political motives and not for any other reason.
and there is an honesty in being fed and in good faith believing intel reports based upon Saddam sustaining his capacity to develop WMD's and our Gov - like many - believing he actually had them too.
(not least because Saddam did all he could to promote this view himself)
Now what about the others who believed he had them......or are you really trying to say that a tory gov would have told Bush to get lost "cos we believe France, Germany and Russia before we believe you guy.....even though our intel is all saying much the same as the US is claiming"?!
A politician can simply be wrong from time to time without your drama-queen-like "judgement is flawed" melodramatic nonsense Chris.
Come on, tune in.
The rest of you 'solution' would have put us (rightly or wrongly) in the position of France as far as the US is concerned. You might not appreciate it but the shift in geo-politics that would mean would have had enormous and very far-reaching consequences for us and many many others.
Like many I see the current tory position as a highly opportunist shift to try and capitalise on some of the anti-war feeling......
Originally posted by Chris McGee
Another attack, you have no point to make, obviously.
OK, we'll believe you know why the British people were against the war rather than the pollsters who actually went out and asked their opinion.
Supposition, zero facts.
Only if you believe he acted in good faith.
Ah, yes, when he kept on saying things like 'We do not have any WMD'?
What a Tory government would have done is not in question. Read the thread title.
Deflection from the question in hand.
Oh good, only a few thousand people dead, least you cleared that up before it got out of hand.
The rest of your post until the point below was just puerile (note the spelling) tripe with no facts or arguments so I will ignore it.
No, a true comparison would have been Australia.
You mean anti-Bush feeling?
The Tories are asking questions of the governments performance and conduct in making the decision to go to war. Some would say the job of an opposition party.
: Intel believed across the world? In France? Germany? Russia?
- Now what about the others who believed he had them......or are you really trying to say that a tory gov would have told Bush to get lost "cos we believe France, Germany and Russia before we believe you guy.....even though our intel is all saying much the same as the US is claiming"?!
Pull the other one.
: Ah, yes, when he kept on saying things like 'We do not have any WMD'?
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Whether you prefer to ignore it or not the point is clear enough for anyone who cares to be fair and reasonable about this Chris.
The polls have shown this too.
Quite so and you tory guys have a pathologiocal determination never to allow any kind of benefit ogf the doubt.....and it exactly this kind of deeply unreasonable OTT nonsense that has you tory types ignored by the public....as you will see shortly.
What he said publicly and what was being said privately are not the same thing....go read Hutton and Butler if you need educating on this.
I call examining tory criticisms in the context of tory policy and instincts fair game, sorry you find it so uncomfortable.
I suggest that those Iraqis dead from this war are almost overwhelmingly dead from US actions, the US dead are their affair and the British dead are nothing like "a few thousand".
I mean no offence to Aus (I have Aussie family too but really, if you truely think the UK occupies a position akin to Austrailia in geo-politics then I would politely say you have no clue Chris.
and others would quite reasonably say that their crass hypocracy (given their position at the start of all this) makes this position rather absurd indeed rather laughable.
Originally posted by Chris McGee
I've posted my evidence, where is yours?
We tend to believe the worst of Labour in the same way that Labour tends to believe the worst of us. Both sides are as bad as each other on this one. I will accept that he may have acted in good faith. I have serious doubts about it but it is something neither of us will be able to prove either way. Let's leave it at that.
aside from in the 'seriously flawed' (quote from Butler) intelligence they were ripping to pieces.
All talk, no hard facts, no evidence, nothing to support your case at all.
the fact that you are still dodging questions and the fact you still have not presented any evidence for the ridiculous claims you continue to make.
It's still too many dead people for some flawed intelligence.
I was referring to the position adopted by the Australian government with respect to the war in Iraq. They did everything I suggested and are still considered allies of the US. If you don't understand this time, let me know and i'll put it into shorter words for you.
More would say they are doing their job.
Originally posted by shorty
It is a betral he cares more abut them than us. Who is Blair anyway? Primeminister? I thought that was Bush. Now im real confused
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- That's it?
Those are you 'grounds' for describing this PM as a 'traitor'!?
Jayzuss for a moment there I though you might have been serious.
Originally posted by shorty
Explain to me on what grounds he isn't.
Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- No shorty, it doesn't work like that.
That's called trolling.
If you make such wild claims then it's fair to call you to account for them.
You don't have to, of course, but I'm not jumping through silly hoops for anyone, ok?