BS: Bush Blair, more evidence

Subject: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:26 PM

More questions arise over Bush and Blair's professed reasons for the attack on Iraq.

Both should be impeached.
New labour should be hounded from office.
The apologists on Mudcat should hang their heads in shame.
click here

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:59 PM

Any excuse for a war...

as long as arms dealers and reconstructionists line their pockets who cares about morality?

This is a corrupt and immoral government who will kill and maim for money. They are no better than Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Once Famous
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 10:12 PM

Make love, not war.

Give me a toke.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST,BOAB
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 04:06 AM

"News" items like this make me sick! c'mon---who the hell NEEDS "more evidence???

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 01:32 PM

I agree with you, Boab. I saw this item on the online news this morning - attributed to The Nation - but saw not a shred of credibility. Until they come up with some kind of evidence to back it up, this is the kind of thing that shouldn't be promulgated. Scandal mongering isn't pretty, no matter who is doing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Barry Finn
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 04:00 PM

This was carried by the AP, BBC & others. The source is from a new edition of the book Lawless World by Philip Sands (see this artical on Sands & about the story - can't do the blue clicky thing any help http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1700881,00.html ). I see no reason to immediatly dismiss this information given Sands backround & the BB's ongoing record. If anything I'd say it warrants much investigation, even if we're up to our asses & elbows in investagative commitees already, but then who's fault is that?
A not at all suprised
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:36 PM

Thats rich Ebbie!!

"Until they come up with some kind of evidence to back it up, this is the kind of thing that shouldn't be promulgated."
Where were you in the run up to a war that was created by the use of lies and disinformation.

The leaked document referred to in Sands book has plenty of credibility....and has not been denied by the White House or Downing Street.
The full text will be released shortly I am sure.
What side are you on??

Here you go Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:55 PM

Actually, according to Bush's own former Tresury Secretary, Bush came into office in 2001 Hell bent on attacking Iraq... Blair was just a flunky recruit...

Night of fact, historians will most likely blame 9/11 on Bush's attention to Iraq and inattention to Osama's gang... Richard Clark has suggested as much...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 11:26 AM

Ebbie and Guest Boab -- I think you're way off the mark here. For years progressives have been complaining bitterly that the mainstream media will not report evenhandedly on the Iraq war and Bush's other shenanigans. Well, here's some reporting. It's to be applauded.

We can't have it both ways.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 01:35 PM

Bobert - FACT - delivered 03 Feb 06 - 07:55 PM

"Bush came into office in 2001 Hell bent on attacking Iraq"

Now just let us remind ourselves about what a Bobert FACT is:

- Something that requires no basis in actual fact
- Something that requires no subsantiation

One question Bobert, if what you say is true, why did it take him from January 2001 until March 2003 to carry out what you claim he was obviously "Hell Bent On" before he came to power in January 2001?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Barry Finn
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:54 PM

Thanks akenaton
don't they look like almost twins?
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Arne
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

Ebbie:

I agree with you, Boab. I saw this item on the online news this morning - attributed to The Nation - but saw not a shred of credibility. Until they come up with some kind of evidence to back it up, this is the kind of thing that shouldn't be promulgated.

Yes, of course. Indeed. We certainly need better evidence before we entertain the thought that Dubya and his poodle did such a thing. After all, it's totally out of character compared to what they usually do, and goodness knows they're the most forthright and truthful people about these kinds of things.

Or then again, we could carry on to the next logical step from the prescription of the Rev. C.L. Dodgson: "Sentence first, verdict afterwards"....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:46 PM

I believe Boab was conveying the point that we already have all the evidence we need to prove Bush and Blair to be war criminals.
Boab has been against the war from the beginning, and has written many fine posts on the subject.

I take his point that some papers present these stories in a less than serious manner. "Overkill" probably does more harm than good.

However I dont believe we should let this greatest of all political crimes simply fade from memory.
The stain that Blair has added to the already heavily contaminated British colours can only be removed by impeachment and possibly legal action.
He should be joined in the dock by many Labour MPs who put the chance of personal advancement before principle, thus involving all of us in his bloody plan to gain a place in history.

He has achieved his objective, but not in the way he would have liked. Blair has become the least trusted and most hated politician in modern political history.

Surprised to see Teribus still poking his head out from below his stone, although the weight of evidence against his heros must make that stone harder to shift every day....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: DougR
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:21 PM

Good question, Teribus. I assume Bobert, in his own way, will come up with a meaningful reply.

And all this talk about evidence that Bush and Blair are war criminals is pure horse pucky. Do you think, for a moment, Ake, that if that were true, the Democratic Party would be on that like flies on you-know-what?

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: michaelr
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 11:52 PM

Doug, the Dems, in addition to being 75% spineless, corrupt career politicians -- just like the Repubs -- are in the position of being outnumbered in all branches of government. Therefore they have to pick their fights carefully.

The fact that few politicians in America have the guts to say so doesn't make the administration any less criminal.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 04:13 AM

actually I would have put Blair's standing as fairly high considering the fact that he has pissed off so many Labour supporters.

Interesting though, d'you really think Cameron would win an election tomorrow or say next week?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 06:03 AM

One thing Akenaton the date of this meeting was given as 31st January 2003 - Correct?

Now to all you Saddam apologists who keep telling the rest of us about how fully yer man was co-operating, why did GWB suggest they mark up a U-2 Recon Aircraft in UN colours, surely if Saddam as you say was co-operating fully, U-2 aircraft painted in UN colours would have been flying regularly over Iraq for the two months preceeding this meeting between Bush and Blair. You see such flights were required as part of the compliance criteria in UN Security Council Resolution 1441 - for Bush and Blair to talking about such a thing could only indicate that the Iraq Government were in material breach of 1441 - Correct? Even the affable good Doctor Blix complained about the lack of such flights to the UN Security Council.

So here we have another writer trying to sell a book by rehashing old news in an attempt to present it as something new. Sorry Ake nothing new at all in this - it's about asenthralling as "Dog bites man".

To the anti-war brigade no lies were told, no great campaign of deception, no massive propaganda effort, all involved acted in good faith in accordance with the evidence available at the time - and for our US contingent I do not believe it would have made the blindest bit of difference who was President at the time things would have come to pass pretty much as they have.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:44 AM

Teribus...I dont have to become involved in an endless unwinnable debate with you concerning whither or not Saddam was complying, or even who was lying to whom.

The important thing is, that the war is now percieved by the vast majority of people worldwide, to have been illegal and immoral.
The agenda of New Labour in Britain and the Neocons in America has been so badly damaged by the war that Blair has been forced to stand down, much against his will and Mr Camerons New Tories will certainly win the next election.
Unless Bush can retreat from Iraq in double quick time, the American public will remove him from power mainly because of the shambles his administration have created

Some say that good follows bad, and the one positive thing to emerge from the Iraq war is that ordinary folk will never again take the words of their leaders at face value.

So you see, not only have the Iraqi people defeated the invader, but the left have defeated the right in the battle for Western "hearts and minds"....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 10:24 AM

no lies were told, no great campaign of deception, no massive propaganda effort, all involved acted in good faith in accordance with the evidence available at the time

Dear me, I do believe I saw a white rabbit!

This is a fine children's story indeed. The best of Tom Sawyer's fence and Alice's improbable adventures rolled into a comedy of military adventure.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Arne
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:10 AM

Teribus:

Now to all you Saddam apologists who keep telling the rest of us about how fully yer man was co-operating, why did GWB suggest they mark up a U-2 Recon Aircraft in UN colours, surely if Saddam as you say was co-operating fully, U-2 aircraft painted in UN colours would have been flying regularly over Iraq for the two months preceeding this meeting between Bush and Blair. You see such flights were required as part of the compliance criteria in UN Security.

Hey, no one says that it was a good idea from the Doofus-In-Chief. Here you assume that Dubya's stoopid provocation would have worked.

IIRC, there was some disagreement as to the scope and nature of the U-2 overflights, but IIRC in the end Saddam acceded to them. Didn't matter. Dubya had been fixing to invade for years, and he wasn't going to let anything -- lack of WoMD, lack of response to provocation, any concessions on disputed weapons, whatever --- stop him. Much to the sorrow of around 2200 families in the U.S. right now, and many more around the world....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:21 AM

Fuck, I do believe I'm talking to myself here...

First I respond to Guest, Boab and our own Ebbie. To be met with dead silence.

Then I respond to dear, deluded Dougie, and he won't answer me either!

Is it my breath?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST,Boab
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:45 AM

Michaelr---sorry Mate, if my non-reaction gave cause for upset! As was later pointed out, I was merely , in my initial post,pointing out the fact--the fact---that there is already enough evidence of illegal activity and scheming to dump those two miscreants into the smelliest dustbin of history that can be provided----

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: michaelr
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 07:53 PM

I'm with you there, Boab.

Sure would like to hear from Doug, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 09:49 PM

Horsepucky?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 08:31 AM

Arne,


"Here you assume that Dubya's stoopid provocation would have worked."

The point being that , IF Saddam was complying as you have stated in the past, it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN provocation, just a CONTINUATION of the existing ( mandated) UN flights.

So, what is it- Provocation, in which case you are wrong about Saddam complying, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: kendall
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 08:42 AM

Fact, 7 years of inspections turned up NOTHING! He was ordered to get rid of his WsMD, and he did.

Bushites, spin this!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST,Patriotic Bluesman
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:04 AM

Sheesh - you anti-war war lunatics are at it again. You are once again trying to do to a great country what you did over Vietnam, with your folk songs, guitars and marijuana. You are trying to rewrite history to suit yourselves, and you are so WRONG.
Because of you, we are now taught that Vietnam was a bad thing; embarked upon in error, prosecuted in vain and wound up in ignominy.

And yet that is so, so WRONG.

We really should look again at a glorious part of US history - one that has so many echoes today. We should find solace in the fact that our leaders continue to tell us the truth and we must obey them, that communists, socialists, homesexuals and atheists are still the enemy, and that we can still march on again to victory as we did so magnificently in Vietnam.
For the record: American destroyers were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin after the Maddox was shamefully shot upon. North Vietnam followed this up and suffered the consequences of a power reluctant to shoot but forced to do so in self-defence. All this was reported in the media at the time, but to this day people claim it was a lie. But I ask you this - how can it have been a lie? Are you saying that a US president lied? That is a grave charge - a treasonable charge.

And then we have the war itself. Liberals, lesbians and lunatics will tell you it was a mistake, and now - because they have shouted so loudly for so long - our kids in school are starting to believe them. But they are WRONG!

How so? The war itself stopped south east Asia falling under the communist yoke. So many communists were involved in fighting the US forces that they didn't have a chance to spread their atheist poison elsewhere - leaving Malaysia, the Phillipines and other parts of the region free to become bastions of religious tolerance.
It also gave a generation of American boys a real chance to make something of themselves. How many kids went on to major in degree courses in Canada and the UK as a result of Vietnam, eh? Had there not been a war, they would probably have stayed at home and been a burden on the state. We don't hear that from the lily-livered peaceniks, do we?
And what about the sense of pride in a nation? Just think how how many people were made to feel a real part of the American way when they were handed a little folded flag. And how many even now find inspiration from the national memorial in Washington. Just think, those 58,249 lives could have been totally wasted if it hadn't been for Vietnam.

The queers and the mad also tell us the US was beaten in Vietnam. WRONG again!

When the US finally withdrew voluntarily, it was to leave a country far more advanced than it had found, with social welfare and health care unparalleled in the region. The North Vietnamese troops who were invited in to replace the Americans saw this and soon abandoned communism.

So let's stop all this crap now. If our government says these are bad people, that's good enough for me. The President is the Commander in Chief. That means he knows everything that's going on. Probably even more than Teribus. If he says Iraq is linked to Al Quaeda, it's gotta be right. If he says terrorism is based in Iraq, we must root it out.
Don;t forget, we are in a war on terrorism. It's a war we dare not lose. It would be like losing a war on happiness. Think about it.
And do your patriotic duty by closing your eyes and ears to people who try to tell you things the government doesn't want you to hear. "We shall overcome"? Yeah right - this time truth, decency and the American way will overcome liberal lies.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:11 AM

lol....

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 09:59 AM

AN excerpt from tha article linked above:

"A memo of a two-hour meeting between the two leaders at the White House on January 31 2003 - nearly two months before the invasion - reveals that Mr Bush made it clear the US intended to invade whether or not there was a second UN resolution and even if UN inspectors found no evidence of a banned Iraqi weapons programme. ...

The memo seen by Prof Sands reveals:

· Mr Bush told Mr Blair that the US was so worried about the failure to find hard evidence against Saddam that it thought of "flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft planes with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in UN colours". Mr Bush added: "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach [of UN resolutions]".

· Mr Bush even expressed the hope that a defector would be extracted from Iraq and give a "public presentation about Saddam's WMD". He is also said to have referred Mr Blair to a "small possibility" that Saddam would be "assassinated".

· Mr Blair told the US president that a second UN resolution would be an "insurance policy", providing "international cover, including with the Arabs" if anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning oil wells, killing children, or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq.

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

The revelation that Mr Blair had supported the US president's plans to go to war with Iraq even in the absence of a second UN resolution contrasts with the assurances the prime minister gave parliament shortly after. On February 25 2003 - three weeks after his trip to Washington - Mr Blair told the Commons that the government was giving "Saddam one further, final chance to disarm voluntarily".

He added: "Even now, today, we are offering Saddam the prospect of voluntary disarmament through the UN. I detest his regime - I hope most people do - but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step to achieve disarmament peacefully."

On March 18, before the crucial vote on the war, he told MPs: "The UN should be the focus both of diplomacy and of action... [and that not to take military action] would do more damage in the long term to the UN than any other single course that we could pursue."

The meeting between Mr Bush and Mr Blair, attended by six close aides, came at a time of growing concern about the failure of any hard intelligence to back up claims that Saddam was producing weapons of mass destruction in breach of UN disarmament obligations. It took place a few days before the then US secretary Colin Powell made claims - since discredited - in a dramatic presentation at the UN about Iraq's weapons programme."

---

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: DougR
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:42 AM

For once you're right, Kendall. He got rid of his WMD alright, it appears he shipped them to Syria according to a former General in the Iraqi Army who served under Saddam.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:48 AM

I think we would have learned by now, Doug, not to take our intell from former memebers of Saddam's house, or others who have axes to grind. I would remind you that that is how we got into this mess. Unintelligent use of bad intelligence is as bad as moronic leadership.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 01:24 PM

This from a Teribus post:

Bobert - FACT - delivered 03 Feb 06 - 07:55 PM

"Bush came into office in 2001 Hell bent on attacking Iraq"

But this was not a claim made by Bobert. Bobert was quoting Bush's former treasury secretary, as he made so clear that even Teribus might have noticed. So much for a Teribus fact. Sorry, FACT. Naturally, Teribus's devoted lapdog DougR clutched at it withoiut a moment's thought, presumably because he can't tell fact from fiction.

Ebbie, can it really be true that you're lined up with Teribus on this?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:00 PM

Guest PB says - "It also gave a generation of American boys a real chance to make something of themselves. How many kids went on to major in degree courses in Canada and the UK as a result of Vietnam, eh?"

The kids who made something of themselves in Canada were those who came to Canada as draft dodgers. Many of those that returned from Vietnam are still on the streets and were never able to recover from their 'invisible' mental and emotional injuries.

"Just think, those 58,249 lives could have been totally wasted if it hadn't been for Vietnam."

What makes you think that 58,249 dead bodies are more valuable than life?

You would definitely be more valuable if you were dead. You have nothing meaningful to contribute to this forum or to our planet. Drop dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 11:17 PM

At the risk of sounding xenophobic, I suspect that the guest above is more probably American than British!(*G*) But it's incredible that anyone at all, with a rudimentary understanding of English, could have missed the irony in Patriotic Bluesman's post. When guests are as dim as this, it is easy to understand why they prefer not to identify themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo (OTR)
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 11:56 AM

BeardedBruce:

So, what is it- Provocation, in which case you are wrong about Saddam complying, or not?

Please read again. I didn't say that Dubya's provocation was rational. But provocation it was nonetheless. It's the intent -- the mens rea -- that matters. Whether provocation is provocation doesn't require that it be successful ... or even capable of eliciting a response.

Say, about those 2200 dead (and the hundreds of billions of dollars our kids will pay for this sanguinary feat)....

Cheers,

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:00 PM

kendall - 07 Feb 06 - 08:42 AM

"Fact, 7 years of inspections turned up NOTHING! He was ordered to get rid of his WsMD, and he did.

Bushites, spin this!"

kendall, if what you contend above is true, then could you please explain the content of the UNSCOM Report presented to the assembled United Nations Security Council in January 1999.

It was upon the contents of that report in which Scott Ritter and Dr. Hans Blix lent a hand that the basis existed for the evaluation that it was likely that Iraq still possessed WMD.

Peter K - Bobert Facts are normally baseless, or at best based on hearsay, they are never backed-up by anything that could remotely be called reliable verification. Now if what "Bush's former treasury secretary" said was correct - Bush took his sweet time about it. It also completely ignores the moves made against Iraq by President George W Bush's immediate predecessor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush Blair, more evidence
From: Amos
Date: 09 Feb 06 - 12:03 PM

· Mr Bush told the prime minister that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". Mr Blair did not demur, according to the book.

Of course, i don't know if this is a statement of true fact or not. If it is, though, it is testimony to the bludgeoninig stupidity which has characterized this Administration for the last 5 years.

The memo cited above also makes it clear that Bush brought to the table an a priori intention to start a war, which means he contemplated the use of violence, mayhem, the savaging of innocents with blunt instruments of the most lethal kind, and elected it as a course of action. In individuals, this is called premeditated first-degree murder. In individuals, when a trial for such a decision and action occurs, the defense is usually insanity, the inability to tell the difference between right action and evil action, and therefore the inabililty to be legally held responsible for his actions.

If the shoe fits...


A

A