UK's Iraq war inquiry turns focus to Bush officials

World ( 114 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Back to top

Order by Time Order by Popularity

114 Comments

Login to comment

  • 0

    NeoJamal

    I knew out of all countries in the coalition of the Axi..uh I mean Willing, the UK would actually do something about this unlike the US or Japan who swept the Iraq issue under the carpet when there were recent regime changes in their own countries.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Good luck, but most bush loyalist won't be saying a thing. < :-)

  • 0

    FreeganSlayer

    Don't the Brits still have troops over there? Get those guys out first!

  • 0

    Odogma

    British officials can focus all they want. Nothing will come of it.

  • 0

    memyselfI

    Yes, war crimes !!!!! I concur, seek prosecution please.

  • 0

    chutebiryani

    hey but blair with his prep school accent, can convert most anglophiles to his view, even though neither he nor they may have a clue what he might be talking about. talk of style over substance!

  • 0

    Odogma

    hey but blair with his prep school accent, can convert most anglophiles to his view,

    Blair spoke for Britain. Period.

    Besides, as everybody knows, most Americans couldn't find England on a map.

    Tony Blair, to them, " talks just like David Beckham's wife. Why, he could be the next Simon Cowell ! "

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    I thought Brown had pulled the troops already. Balir doesn`t speak to me or any of my family. we all quite rightly think he is an extremist religous mental case with blood of many on his hands. Blair and Bush and the cohorts are all war criminals.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    blair is a poodle and bush is a loon. both belong in jail for killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere. All because they thought they were doing gods work somehow, as if god wants kids dead for no reason or worse for lies.

  • 0

    Branded

    "Britain’s inquiry into the Iraq war"

    Should start with the UN and it's oil for food program- end of story.

  • 0

    Branded

    "I knew out of all countries in the coalition of the Axi..uh I mean Willing, the UK would actually do something about this"

    Ah yes, the noble British- who collectively sat on their thumbs for years while the Americans, and George Bush in particular, took the heat from the liberal pansy arse masses ! The British are embarrassing themselves now with all this hindsight "woulda-coulda-shoulda" nonsense. They'd be better off focusing their attention on the recently discovered missiles dug up in Iraq- seems the WMD's were and are still there !

  • 0

    adaydream

    Branded

    Should start with the UN and it's oil for food program- end of story.

    Already done. Old news.

    I wish they'd both (bush and blair) were both charged with war crimes against humanity. We can dream. < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    "Already done. Old news."

    OK, so what did the Brits conclude ? That if the UN had not compromised their position by accepting bribes from Saddam and had actually done their jobs by enacting maybe just a couple of the UN resolutions against Iraq- that maybe there would have been no invasion by coalition forces ? Maybe- just maybe ?

  • 0

    Branded

    And JT moderators, can we put a stop to this kind of nonsense

    "blair is a poodle and bush is a loon."

    You have stated before that such name calling only lowers the discussion- as it does ! Please show some consistency... thanks.

  • 0

    adaydream

    JT moderators, I agree with Branded.

    This is shameful posting. "blair is a poodle and bush is a loon"

    I mean I never saw a poodle I'd kick. And to call bush a loon disrespects all loons.

    blair just repeated everything that bush said. he added a few of his own exaggerations and lies, but he was bush's carrier pigeon of bush's lies to the Brits.

    bush took his pleasure out on lying to the public. he lied to us for his personal and followers benefits.

    I'll send a personal invitation for the Brits to come and interview bush. he volunteered or brave men and women to fight a war we should never have fought. Well, I volunteer george bush to be waterboarded until he talks. < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    "blair just repeated everything that bush said."

    That would make him a "parrot"- not a poodle.

    "bush took his pleasure out on lying to the public."

    And he said this ? When ? Or are you hypothesising ?

    Sheesh !

  • 0

    yokomoc

    Blair spoke for Britain. Period.

    He spoke for the government, but the public were overwhelmingly AGAINST the Iraq war and the spoke for themselves with the massive protests. Labour are about to be punished, and the disaster of a Tory governament looms. I just read this headline from today: "Tories: Power to the People" and threw up a little in my mouth.

  • 0

    Branded

    "He spoke for the government, but the public were overwhelmingly AGAINST the Iraq war and the spoke for themselves with the massive protests."

    How exactly did they protest ? By breaking things ? Starting fires ? Looting stores ? Hardly the protest strategies by an enlightened public. Nothing but pure mob violence if you ask me. I mean how many Brits, who bought into the "no blood for oil" hullabaloo actually stopped driving ? Actually stopped purchasing things manufactured, delivered, and/or were processed by any "oil" related industry ? I dare say NONE ! These protests you speak about were nothing more than opportunistic gangland riots- they had nothing to do with Iraq, Saddam, or the war on terror.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    This is mostly a feel-good event for the British.

  • 0

    yokomoc

    Branded, I'm glad I don't live in your reality. Talk about rewriting history! I'm talking about 2003 by the way, not this week.

  • 0

    davestrousers

    These protests you speak about were nothing more than opportunistic gangland riots- they had nothing to do with Iraq, Saddam, or the war on terror.

    What on Earth are you talking about? The protests against the Iraq war were the biggest protests that the UK has ever seen. The Feb 2003 protest in London saw 1 million people on the streets. That has to be some indicator of the strength of the objection people felt towards the war.

  • 0

    Madverts

    branded,

    "How exactly did they protest ?"

    Clearly you were born after 2003?

  • 0

    Madverts

    Super,

    "This is mostly a feel-good event for the British."

    Another whitewash over gross-misconduct doesn't make me feel good. And who knows how much this stupidity is costing the already skint taxpayer.

    I have never met another soul from the British Isles that supported waging a war of agression on Saddam's Iraq, not that I mean to say not one existed.

    More or less everyone in the UK were either against the invasion, or weren't bright enough to care anyway.

    The "WMD" that Rumsfelt claimed to know the location of, and that Tony Bliar gurlgled could be launched within 45 minutes of the order being given, were a mixture of cooked-up "intel" and figment of the agressors imagination.

    It sure still cracks me up in the back-up justification was about installing democracy when in the UK and to a certain extent the US, those that took us to war were acting in the most un-democratic manner....

  • 0

    dearjohn

    They say the death penalty is carried out not for justice, but to send a warning. Bush and Blair in jail for the rest of their lives will sent a warning to politicians like them. If we don't do it this will just happen again.

  • 0

    LIBERTAS

    If this inquirey has no jurisdiction to charge people, we'll just be receiving the usual middle-finger salute from BushCo. et al.

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Madvert, nicepost mate. The last few years of what Blair did in Britains name (includes me) shames me. I do recall the the mass protests against the war, the dissent in the Labour cabinet and back benches and the opposition by Charles kennedy and bhis followers.

    This inquiry, though nobody will be imprisoned, may make government in the future, think again about joining in a war that is unjustified.

  • 0

    ca1ic0cat

    I really don't think that Cheney is going to go to London any time soon. It would be nice to have him explain himself but I imagine the testimony would go something like Blair's in any event.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    So the general feeling in the UK is that Saddam should be in power and Blair should be in jail?

  • 0

    Sarge

    "So the general feeling in the UK is that Saddam should be in power and Blair should be in jail?"

    Can you believe that?

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Sarge, yes Saddam remaining in power would have been better for the people of Iraq and regional stability.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Well Sarge and SuperLib, now you're getting the right idea. Little late, but yes blair and bush being locked up would have saved 100,000s of lives, many parentless children and a $Trillion.

    Please take bush and company to England and interrogate them there. < :-)

  • 0

    Madverts

    "So the general feeling in the UK is that Saddam should be in power and Blair should be in jail?"

    You know fine well what the feeling is since we've been slapping each other for years abouton Japan Today. None of our business, breeding ground for terrorists vs. secular dictator, de-stabalizing the region, who's going to pay for all this....ecetera, ecetera.

    Obviously there were those of us that pontificated over putting a nasty dicator in a corner, and what he might do with his alleged "WMD" should he be on the receiving end of an invasion, but heh, that's a moot point now as it's clear to all capable of cognitive reason they were counting on his impotence after the years of sanctions - and sanctions that clearly stopped Saddam re-arming, if indeed we are to believe they were really the Reality of his aims.

    And besides, Saddam being in power isn't the issue, Superlib - despite your attempts at obfuscation. It's the mockery of the British public during the "case" for war made by the Blair government that nobody wanted any part of that is for discussion here.

    The hundreds of thousands dead in post invasion Iraq, the lies, the dis-information, and the stretching of the truth by the British government against the clear will of the people is the issue at hand here.

    Not Saddam Hussein or his brutal regime.

    My apologies for that Reality being hard to bear.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    Well you know me....my issue is how can people have a clear will to keep a man like Saddam in power...

  • 0

    Madverts

    So you're prepared to accept the government's outright lies to remove him?

    I'm sorry, but the fact that they're lying should spell it out for you.

    For all the other brutal tin-pot dictators worldwide that continue to act without any risk whatsoever of international intervention.....

    .....well, I rest my case as Iran cntinues towards it's nuclear armed goal.

  • 0

    SuperLib

    I don't need government lies. I think he should have been removed a long time ago. What's depressing is that people actually have to think Saddam is going to kill them personally before they lift a finger. Otherwise, go ahead and gas as long as you don't cross the border....

  • 0

    Madverts

    "What's depressing is that people actually have to think Saddam is going to kill them personally before they lift a finger."

    Why only Saddam?

    And why did the UK and US governments only start blighting rubbish about freedom and democracy when it was clear, that the Europeans at least, where skeptical about the "threat" posed by Saddam?

    You know I rspect your point of view which is the noble gesture if helping the opressed.

    This isn't the topic.

    The topic is a supposedly democratic government that not only went aginst the will of the people with millions in the streets protesting, but were actually twisting information if not outright lying to voters.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    The apologists for disaster will never gain traction on the war crimes committed by bush and his puppet blair. Saddam at one point was a US ally and weapons that killed innocent kurds came from the US. That was the Reagan/Bush1 strategy. Then when Bush heard from God that he should invade Iraq Saddam magically became the pilot of the 9-11 planes. All of them. And he personally was enriching uranium in Kenya. The lies were just endless.

    Only the those in total fear of truth pretend that the illegal invasion of Iraq is anything other than what it is, a war crime and a total failure. Bush, Blair, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Idi Amin, etc., all murderers.

  • 0

    Branded

    Madverts- I love the way you gloss over history with your conspiracy theorist nonsense-

    "The "WMD"... were a mixture of cooked-up "intel" and figment of the agressors imagination."

    Created by Saddam Hussein and his propoganda machine ! If Saddam had not, first of all had a history of owning and using WMD's or created the environment of not only continuing to possess, create, and develop more- well you wouldn't have had "any" of the UN resolutions against Iraq ! Why do you continue to skip this discussion in any and all of your posts. Please address it head on and maybe you will learn to let Iraq, Bush, Blair, your angst- behind ! Madverts, I just want you to sleep a little better at night- you still seem bitter about this- don't be ! The Iraqi people now have voting rights, they are developing their own democratic state, they are on the verge of freedoms they would never realize under Saddam ! This whole "UK Inquiry" is nothing more than spittin in the wind-hopeless theatre where the same old points get re-hashed- nothing will change because... Ousting Saddam was the right thing to do !

  • 0

    Madverts

    "I love the way you gloss over history with your conspiracy theorist nonsense"

    Heh, conspiracy theories like these?

    "We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - US secratary of defense Rumsfelt on Saddam's "WMD"

    or like this;

    24 September 2002, House of Commons "It [the intelligence service] concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which could be activated within 45 minutes, including against his own Shia population; and that he is actively trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability..."

  • 0

    Madverts

    branded,

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3054991.stm

    This is the subject at hand, the lies from the Blair government. You have detailed quotes above.

    How bad Saddam Hussein was in your opinion has nothing to do with the topic.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Branded

    history of owning and using WMD's or created the environment of not only continuing to possess, create, and develop more

    History tells us that Saddam bought those WMD he had years ago from the US.

    The Iraqi people now: Deaths upwards toward 100,000 from our rampant bombing. Millions lost their homes. 100,000s of orphans because their parents were murdered from bombing cities. Have to totally rebuild their country from our damn near total destruction of all Iraq's infrastructure, dams, water treatment plants, sewage systems, factories, bridges and schools.

    Ousting Saddam was a calculated strike to enrich dick cheney, george bush and Haliburton.

    By the way where is all that petroleum that was going to pay for the war? < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    "The Iraqi people now:"

    Are free from the tyrant and dictator known as Saddam Hussein. They enjoy free elections and hope for a better future !

  • 0

    adaydream

    I was trying to save space, but...

    If Saddam had not, first of all had a history of owning and using WMD's or created the environment of not only continuing to possess, create, and develop more- well you wouldn't have had "any" of the UN resolutions against Iraq !

    Saddam got these WMD from the US. It was perfectly all right as long as he was buying them from the US. Even when he used them against his own people, donald rumpsfeld was over there kissing his butt, shaking hands and having a good old time.

    By the way when george bush attacked Iraq, where were those WMD you purport that they had? Huh? I'm still waiting to see them. < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    adaydream- you are shifting blame, as usual.

    As for WMD's- are you not paying attention ? Seems a scud was recently dug up in Iraq ! Video is on youtube- judge for yourself.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Branded I'm not shifting blame. I've always blamed bush, etc for attacking Iraq. You've been here all along, just under a different name.

    Dug up a scud missile, huh. That's precious. That's like when the US found some Iraqi jets buried under the sands and the republicans were screaming that the Iraqis were going to make a sneak attack with these two jets.

    A scud, WMD, huh. LMASROF. < :-)

  • 0

    yabits

    The analogy goes to prove a point- that all "commodities" have dual purpose, as did the chemicals sold to Iraq by various nations including the germans, french,and Brits.

    Tell us: What other purpose does mustard gas have?

    Especially when requested by an acknowledged terror state.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    Amazing that anyone is still looking for WMD in Iraq. Wow. Clueless is being generous.

    Earth to loons, bush spent at least $400 million looking for WMD and found nothing. Try reading the Kay report. I know you have not heard of it cause its not of Fox fake news. Use google.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Where are the WMD? Don't tell me one scud. Where are the metric tons of WMD? < :-)

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.05/index.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.06/index.html

    http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript.07/index.html

  • 0

    bushlover

    The Brits will continue to beat themselves up with this one. Why don't they just sign their country over to Iran because well Saddam just isn't there anymore.

    The statistics of 100,000 of this and that are ridiculous. Good one. "one hundred thousand orphaned babies" makes Blair a bad boy. Some people really blame Bush and Blair for inflating the WMD but have no qualms about their own inflations. Funny.

  • 0

    Branded

    adaydream- "Dug up a scud missile, huh. That's precious."

    Not precious, but interesting ! The dailymail.co.uk is running this story posted Feb 5th;

    -They have been searching in Iraq for the past nine years, 10 months and 15 days. Today, the hard work finally paid off as soldiers found one of those elusive weapons of mass destruction’that Saddam Hussein was supposed to have been hiding.

    -The bomb is thought to have been buried by Saddam Hussein's regime before the UK and U.S. invasion of Iraq started in 2003.

    Oh and and just a reminder- from "The UN Center" website from 2004;

    "Parts of Iraqi missiles discovered in Dutch scrapyard – UN report

    7 June 2004 – Engines of two surface-to-air missiles from Iraq have turned up at a scrapyard in the Netherlands, according to a new report by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), tasked by the Security Council to probe the country’s illicit arms programme.

    Commission experts have verified that one of the engines came from an Al Samoud 2 missile – proscribed under international sanctions – that had been tagged by UN inspectors in the past.

    UNMOVIC says this new development demonstrates the difficulty of discovering the scope of Iraq’s clandestine arms programme. “The existence of missile engines originating in Iraq among scrap in Europe may affect the accounting of proscribed engines known to have been in Iraq’s possession in March 2003,” it says.

    Representatives of the scrapyard indicated that up to a dozen similar engines had been seen there earlier this year, while more could have passed through unnoticed."

    Interesting stuff- should you care to take notice ! The only failure by the Bush admin. in regards to Iraq was their failure to properly educate the public on the facts !

  • 0

    Sarge

    "the illegal invasion of Iraq"

    Is this the illegal invasion that has removed an awful dictator responsible for hundreds of thousands if not over a million deaths and most definitely illegally invaded Kuwait, provided the conditions for free elections resulting in an Iraqi government that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors or thumb its nose at the U.N.?

    Checking...

    Yeah, it is!

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Sarge, is this the illegal invasion that resuluted in more deaths than under Saddam entire reign including his invasion of Kuwait?

    Sarge, there were no nukes and no WMDs, your Fox news friens were lying matey. Lest we forget Mr Rumsfeld and Reagan gave Iraq the ability to have WMDs and financed their military ambitions as Saddam was secular.

    Blair, Bush and all their diivy nutcase religous maniac mates, should all be sent down for life with only their Bible to keep them company.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Branded go back to my 3:26AM post. Where are the metric tons we just knew where they were remember? We sent 1000s of inspectors prior to attacking and they searched everywhere, including all palaces. We had maps and were going to find the WMD any day now.

    You're talking about a little garbage. A scud, good grief. They were crap, they fired lots of them in the first few days of the war. What was the payload? Was it combustible, biological, chemical or nuclear?

    Commission experts have verified that one of the engines came from an Al Samoud 2 missile – proscribed under international sanctions – that had been tagged by UN inspectors in the past.

    It was known by inspectors. No secret see.

    You're definitely over estimating you discoveries. < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    "the illegal invasion of Iraq"

    According to what governing body ? To date, the legality of the invasion and occupation of Iraq has been widely debated since the United States, United Kingdom, and a coalition of other countries launched the 2003 invasion of Iraq. So far there is no global authority with the legal authorization to term the invasion "illegal". It is therefore simply, "The invasion of Iraq".

  • 0

    Branded

    adaydream; "Branded go back to my 3:26AM post. Where are the metric tons we just knew where they were remember?"

    I don't remember anyone saying they would find "metric tons". I remember government officials from various nations saying that according to Saddam- metric tons were "unaccounted" for. In my book WMD's, as in the plural, means more than one- like in the number of planes that struck the world trade towers- just two ! You find me two missiles with any detection of sarin, mustard, any gas whatsoever, I'm satisfied ! And I do believe more than one missile has been discovered, and as I mentioned before- it looks like another has just been dug up. You call it "garbage"- of course you do. You have too much time and energy invested in ignoring the truth.

  • 0

    adaydream

    So you've proved that at one time Iraq had missiles. So you've proved that they once had stockpiles of WMD at one time. No news. That was already known and they were destroyed years ago. Where are the WMD they are in the links I provided. You even look at them? That's from the UN Council meeting when Colin Powell took the reports that bush alleged were facts of copious amounts of WMD. Dual use vehicles.

    The ones we went to war for.

    Unless you come up with some substantive find, you got nothing. < :-)

  • 0

    Branded

    "So you've proved that at one time Iraq had missiles. So you've proved that they once had stockpiles of WMD at one time. No news."

    And at one time they had Sarin gas, and mustard gas, and various other gasses. And at one time Saddam financially sponsored terrorist activities including training camps and bounties on the heads of American forces. Yes indeed- at one time Saddam and his ilk were quite the notorious criminals. "At one time". Odd, if they were "all" destroyed- how do we account for the various findings ? And if they were all destroyed- why couldn't Saddam account for "the metric tons" ? Was he just lying ? Why ? Unfortunately for you, the net is full of "substantive finds"- you simply refuse to acknowledge it. That is on you mate, and nobody else.

  • 0

    ashika1009

    Hussein bad. Taliban bad. PLO bad. Hamas bad. Hezbollah bad. Terrorists bad. US good. Israel good. Britain, statist and growing more so. Bush no listen to Britain.

  • 0

    adaydream

    Like I said, you're old news. < :-)

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Leave to the British issues that belong to the British.

    A lot of Americans also believe: "the US should've just saved the trillions of dollars for the US economy, screw the Iraqis!"

  • 0

    Madverts

    Lostrune,

    Those of us who asked the question in 2002 of who would be footing the bill for the invasion and occupation were shrieked down with either cries of "un-patriotic" or "terrorist-huggers" depending whether you were American or not.

    Far too many people are trying in vain to gloss over this frantic era of screech-filled paranoia. I'm here to tell you I'm not going to let 'em.

    The root of this came from the Blair and Bush politics of fear, when they built a case for attacking Iraq that was as believable as a second-hand car dealers speak-pitch.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Sarge, is this the illegal invasion that resulted in more deaths than under Saddam('s) entire reign..."

    Sorry, but the liberation of Iraq didn't result in more deaths than all the deaths during Saddam's murderous rule, not by a long shot, and anyway, we can't help it if Muslims want to kill each other.

    "the Bush and Blair politics of fear"

    Yeah, and Saddam was just a harmless ol' coot.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Sorry, but the liberation of Iraq didn't result in more deaths"

    Comparing your bodycount against that of a brutal dictator only goes to show how pitifull your retort is....

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Comparing your bodycount against that of a brutal dictator only goes to show how pitiful your retort is"

    Pitiful is the fact that if you had your way, the brutal dictator would STILL be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst attempting to resurrect his WMD.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "whilst attempting to resurrect his WMD"

    That's been debunked so many times your claims are getting even more pitiful. Try to grow up a little.

  • 0

    yabits

    Pitiful is the fact that if you had your way, the brutal dictator would STILL be running Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces whilst attempting to resurrect his WMD.

    If we go back to what the Bush officials said after taking office in 2001, both National Security Director Rice and Secretary of State Powell made official statements that, thanks to sanctions, inspections, and imposition of the no-fly zone, Saddam Hussein was completely contained and represented no threat to his neighbors.

    The standard for lying the United States into war was set by that other Bush official: Vice-President Cheney. His "5 percent" solution meant that even if something was 95% false and only 5% accurate, that was sufficient grounds to launch a war that would kill and main many thousands of Americans (and allies) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

  • 0

    adaydream

    The standard for lying the United States into war was set by that other Bush official: Vice-President Cheney. His "5 percent" solution meant that even if something was 95% false and only 5% accurate, that was sufficient grounds to launch a war that would kill and main many thousands of Americans (and allies) and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

    So correct. bush and cheney so screwed this country for their personal gains. < :-)

  • 0

    yabits

    So correct. bush and cheney so screwed this country for their personal gains.

    Of course. It doesn't seem to register to people that organizations like the Carlyle Group and Halliburton made handsome profits off of the war. Thanks to folks like Cheney for putting some honor into what was always seen as immoral and unpatriotic.

    Until the time Cheney took over Halliburton in 1995, less than 30% of the company's business was done with the government. Cheney turned that percentage on its head, making Halliburton a company heavily funded by U.S. taxpayers.

  • 0

    zurcronium

    Of course cheney and his band or war criminals are profiteers from the illegal invasion of Iraq. Trillions in debt and thousands of GIs wasted but this masters of war saw their stock rise so that is all that counts to them.

    But what is amazing is that the clueless republicans cheer on the massive greed and corruption which Cheney set in motion. It goes beyond what Saddam was about. It is professional corruption and greed. That is Cheney level greed all without a care for millions displaced or murdered by the illegal invasion.

  • 0

    Sarge

    Madverts: "That's been debunked so many times your claims are getting even more pitiful. Try to grow up"

    You must have missed the part about Saddam killing thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons. Try to stay informed.

    zurcronium: "illegal invasion"

    Is this the illegal invasion that ended Iraq's terrible dictatorship, brought Saddam, Chemical Ali and other criminals to justice, eneabled free elections and an Iraqi government that doesn't seek WMD or threaten its neighbors or anyone else?

    Checking...

    Yeah, it is!

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Jesus, Sarge, don't you get tired writing that same old cant day after day after day?

    We certainly get weary reading it. The war was sold on lies, to satisfy the PNAC agenda. It was contrary to international law, killed hundreds of thousands of people, destabilised the middle east and bankrupted the US and the UK.

    Because it diverted men and materiel from the real business (defeating Al-Qaeda), we're still bogged down in Afghanistan and the Taleban were given time to recoup and a generation of radicalised young men with whom to fight.

    Iraq was not seeking WMD, and posed no threat to anyone.

    Attacking it was a crime, and a catastrophe. Oh, but a bad man and his "winsome sons" (before you start rolling that one out) are gone, so whoop-de-doo.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Iraq ( Saddam ) was not seeking WMD and posed no threat to anyone"

    Good grief, why don't you go talk to some Kurds, some Iranians and some Kuwaitis and then get back here and admit how wrong you are.

    "Attacking it ( liberating Iraq ) was a crime"

    Only in the eyes of those who were in favor of letting Saddam continue to run Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces.

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Sarge, Iraq waas well contained, was militarily weak and better relationships had begun between the Baath party and the Shiites.

    The war was illegaly started to 2 evil men with large egos and an unhealthy fascination with Christianty.

  • 0

    Sarge

    I see that stevecpfc is one of those who were in favor of letting Saddam continue to run Iraq into the ground from his many luxurious palaces.

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    Sarge, Saddam was the lesser of two evils. Do you believe all teh allied deaths and Iraqi civilians are worth it? Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorism thanks to Bush and Blair. The religous fanatics are as bad as the nutcases that commited 9/11. I wish these 2 scumbags could face trial at the Hague. I am sure most of the "free world" would love to see them get their just desserts.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "I am sure that most of the "free world"..."

    So, the free world isn't really free?

    "... would love to see them get their just desserts"

    Then, following that logic, most of the free world, which isn't really free, would have preferred to see Saddam and his winsome sons and Chemical Ali continue their murderous rule.

  • 0

    ProfJuanColePhd

    I was always assured Tony Blair was the British Bill Clinton, but even more clever.

    It is still hard to fathom that the most brilliant politician England has produced in decades could be so easily duped by someone like George Bush.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Sarge - you want to talk about the Kurds?

    Yes, Saddam committed an atrocity when he gassed the kurds. But he didn't develop those weapons with which he gassed them. No WMD programme caused that.

    Where did those weapons come from?

    Donny Rumsfeld sold them to him on behalf of the good ol' USA, who had no problem with his running Iraq into the ground with his winsome sons from his many palaces for as long as he did what he was told during the worst excesses of his murderous rule.

    This war was not a victory for truth, justice and the American way. It was plunder, pure and simple.

  • 0

    lostrune2

    Hmmm... that would be an interesting poll. Given the choice:

    (1) free Iraq but the US economy goes into near-depression

    (2) keep Iraq under sanctions and no-fly zone (north and south of Baghdad) but Saddam still in reign; save the money for the US economy and possibly stave off China squeezing the US Treasury by the balls

    That would show if Americans truly care about Iraqis or just their own skins. Moment of truth.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "the good ol' USA, who had no problem with his running Iraq into the ground with his winsome sons from his many luxurious palaces for as long as he did"

    Yeah, and the rest of the world. At least Bush and Blair finally put an end to it.

  • 0

    adaydream

    I would rather spend a $Trillion on our own people. Not giving $Billions to Halliburton for dick cheney. I wish he would allow himself to be interviewed. he's such a liar.

    Yeah there are some posters here that beat their chest and enjoy seeing our money filling the pockets of thieves and liars. < :-)

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    That the best you got, Sarge? They put an end to Saddam, yes.

    But they destabilised the Middle East. They caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. And they bankrupted your country and mine, whilst enriching themselves immeasurably in the process. They prolonged the Afghan campaign and strengthened the terrorists, swelling their ranks with countless young men with an axe to grind.

    For one man who posed no threat. You going to do the same with Mugabe? Kim Jong-Il? Nope.

  • 0

    Branded

    Ivan- you are starting to irritate me with your misinformation.

    "Yes, Saddam committed an atrocity when he gassed the kurds. But he didn't develop those weapons with which he gassed them. No WMD programme caused that.Where did those weapons come from?"

    As best we know the technology came from the Germans and the materials, though dual in nature, were provide by about a half-a-dozen nations including France, Britain, Germany and Russia.

    "This war was not a victory for truth, justice and the American way. It was plunder, pure and simple."

    Wrong and wrong. This war was not as simplistic as you would like it to be. It involved huge failures by the UN, a breakdown in accurate intelligence world-wide, and a highly effective campaign by Saddam Hussein to lie to and deceive the international community.

    This was a war about "messages". That the UN needed to clean up it's act and do the job it was designed for. That sponsors of terrorism would be dealt with harshly. That the US could still muster the support of enough of the world to take down a tyrant. No- this was not about truth, justice, and the American way- nobody has ever said that. It was about "the war on terrorism." It had to start somewhere- why not Saddams place ! Did it destabilize the ME ? Nope ! The ME has been a mess for years- long before the USA was ever a country. Did it bankrupt your country and mine ? Nope ! Did it strengthen the terrorist movement ? Nope ! My home land was never the target of a succesful terrorist event since 9-11- during the Bush administration. Mugabe, Kim Jong Ill ? They mess with the USA on our soil- I expect nothing less than what Saddam Hussein got- a few years living in caves and then a brief walk off a short plank.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    It involved huge failures by the UN, a breakdown in accurate intelligence world-wide, and a highly effective campaign by Saddam Hussein to lie to and deceive the international community.

    And a dedicated policy of deceit, manipulation and aggression by the United States, with Blair only too keen to jump through hoops for his paymasters.

    The failure of the UN was the failure to control a nation hell-bent on aggression. Its failure was precisely that of the League of Nations.

    The breakdown of intelligence was caused by falsification, cherry-picking and misrepresentation. By the Bush and Blair administrations.

    It was about the war on terrorism? Since when was Saddam an Islamist terrorist?

    Did it destabilize the ME? Nope!

    Did it strengthen the terrorist movement? Nope!

    Pick up a newspaper, chum.

    Mugabe, Kim Jong Ill ? They mess with the USA on our soil- I expect nothing less than what Saddam Hussein got

    Just when did Saddam mess with the USA on your soil? But now the USA has permanent bases in Iraq - precisely as PNAC intended.

    You have to try harder than that, boy.

  • 0

    Branded

    "And a dedicated policy of deceit, manipulation and aggression by the United States, with Blair only too keen to jump through hoops for his paymasters"

    Big words- no substance, for it wasn't only Blair that was "jumping through hoops". Nope, there were more than 40 nations willing to have a go at democracy in Iraq.

    "The failure of the UN was the failure to control a nation hell-bent on aggression."

    Wrong again. The failure of the UN was to allow itself to become compromised in the "oil for food" program. It clearly explains why the UN chose to continue to hand out resolutions rather than take action.

    "The breakdown of intelligence was caused by falsification, cherry-picking and misrepresentation. By the Bush and Blair administrations."

    The breakdown of intelligence simply couldn't identify whether or not Saddam Hussein had access to the weapons that he said he did- not difficult to understand. Saddam had become very adept at creating an environment of misinformation. he also had history on his side- the fact that he had used illegal weapons, WMD, in the past- so why would anyone not believe him- of course except for Ivancoughalot- who knew it was all smoke and mirrors from day one- right ?

    "It was about the war on terrorism? Since when was Saddam an Islamist terrorist?"

    Huh ? You mean you have to be an Islamist fundamentalist to support terrorist activities ? Now thats a new one.

    "Just when did Saddam mess with the USA on your soil?"

    When he started funding terrorist training camps and terrorist cells. When his money went to pay for the deaths of Americans throughout the world- but let me guess, you don't see the connection ?

    "You have to try harder than that, boy."

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    there were more than 40 nations willing to have a go at democracy in Iraq.

    All of whom were deceived or pressured, or a combination of both. Remember "You're either with us or with the Terrorists"? Pretty clear message when you're entirely dependent on US patronage (a la Tonga, for instance).

    The intelligence on weaponry was sketchy, sporadic and vague. It remained so because the US denied the UN weapons inspection team the time to perform their duties. Nonetheless, it was mispresented as conclusive, and the entire casus belli was this non-existent threat.

    You are quite right when you say that the "intelligence couldn't identify whether or not Saddam Hussein had access to the weapons", because they were prevented from finding out. Blix is on record as saying that Saddam was entirely cooperative when he knew the way the wind was blowing. A tyrant, yes, but he wasn't stupid.

    And because there was no evidence, the case for war is void. This was a pre-emptive war of aggression. It was disguised as self-defence with manipulated and falsified "intelligence". The disguise doesn't fool many people any more, which is why the Coalition of the Willing fell apart as soon as the appalling incompetence of post-war planning became apparent.

    It wasn't only me who could see it was smoke and mirrors. Pretty much anyone who doesn't get his information from Fox News could see through the Big Lie.

    And, by the by, we were right, and you were wrong. Perhaps you might want to begin acknowledging that?

    And I'd advise you don't open the can of worms about "funding terrorism", unless you're prepared to discuss Noraid, the Mujaheddin, and the School of the Americas.

    Try again?

    And thus a crime.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "They ( Bush & Blair ) destabilised the Middle East"

    As if the Middle East was the epitomy of peace and stability before the liberation of Iraq.

  • 0

    Branded

    Boy, here we go again- more misinformation, half-truths, etc.

    "Remember "You're either with us or with the Terrorists"? Pretty clear message when you're entirely dependent on US patronage (a la Tonga, for instance)."

    Tonga ? Try Italy, Australia, The Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Portugal etc.

    "The intelligence on weaponry was sketchy, sporadic and vague. It remained so because the US denied the UN weapons inspection team the time to perform their duties"

    Wrong- it was Saddam Hussein that kept weapons inspectors at bay for numerous resolutions.

    "the Coalition of the Willing fell apart as soon as the appalling incompetence of post-war planning became apparent.

    And that took 28 nations 3-4 years to figure it out ? I'll bet it didn't take ivan 1/2 that time now did it ?

    "It wasn't only me who could see it was smoke and mirrors. Pretty much anyone who doesn't get his information from Fox News could see through the Big Lie."

    FOX News ? You mean that cable news outfit that continues to beat the pulp out of all those other cable and domestic news stations in the ratings ? Nah- never saw it- Skyperfect didn't offer it up.

    "And thus a crime."

    Not by any respected international governing body. "Perhaps you might want to begin acknowledging that?"

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Were there weapons, or weren't there?

    I said there weren't. You thought there were. It didn't cost a trillion dollars and a million lives to prove me right.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "Were there weapons, or weren't there?"

    I gave up trying to get the resident trolls to honestly stick to the topic at hand, Ivan.

    The west aided and abetted Saddam and the world stood by and remained silent as he gassed kurds, so any of their retorts in this vein are both nul and void and obviously, have nothing to do with the topic.

    A lot of these posters are just angry young men that aren't old enough to have seen the 1980's anyway.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Madverts - a very prudent policy. I particularly like their selective contempt for "half-truths and misinformation".

    A lot of these posters are just angry young men that aren't old enough to have seen the 1980's anyway.

    And I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support. Fight to the last drop of someone else's blood.

  • 0

    Madverts

    "And I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support."

    Heh, we're talking about 2002, a era when the word "Chickenhawk" came to my awareness. Amazing that most of those pushing for war - and I mean people in power like Deferment Dick - were those that fitted that appelation.

    It's easy to cheer on a war from your living room.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "I gave up trying to get the resident trolls to honestly stick to the topic"

    Translation: I can't prove that the posters I don't agree with are wrong.

    "I doubt they'll be in a rush to sign up for the wars they so vehemently support."

    Not everyone can serve in the military. I did, quite some time ago. And you?

  • 0

    Sarge

    "It's easy to cheer on a war from your living room"

    It's easy to whine about leaders making tough decisions from your living room.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Chickenhawk"

    Derogatory term used to refer to people who support wars against scumbags who would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse, but who aren't in the military.

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Sarge: congratulations on serving your country. I hope the orders you followed were not based on lies. The men who died in Iraq were called upon to do so by liars, each of whom evaded their country's call when it sounded.

    If you served, you are a bigger man than Cheney, who had "other priorities" than to serve his country in Vietnam.

    Yet he enhanced, distorted and misrepresented information, manipulated public opinion after 9/11, and pushed his stated PNAC aim of a war of aggression in Iraq.

    Chilcot, being toothless, will not bring anyone to justice. But the Iraq war was nonetheless an inhuman, calculated war crime.

    And let me pre-empt you. The fact that a Bad Man is now dead does not justify it. The Iraqi people are now not free, but subject to a mosaic of warlord tyrants instead of a single tyrant. But Halliburton, Bush and Blair all made their fortunes, so the dead thousands are - in your eyes - paid for.

  • 0

    cleo

    "Chickenhawk"

    Derogatory term used to refer to people who support wars they expect other folks' kids to fight.

  • 0

    stevecpfc

    It is just common sense that this war was based on fabricated evidence and the Mid East is a far deadly place to its citizens and our citizens than befoe.

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Bush and Blair all made their fortunes"

    Yeah, they're just rolling in Iraqi oil dollars, lol.

    "Chickenhawk"

    Derogatory term used to refer to people who aren't in the military or have kids in the military but still support wars against extremists/terrorists who would torture and kill us without hesitation or remorse.

    "It is just common sense that this war was based on fabricated evidence" and the Mid East is a far ( more ) deadly place to its citizens and our citizens than befoe"

    This war was based on Saddam's extremely poor track record and his refusal to come clean on his WMD and continuing to jerk the U.N. and the hapless Hans Blix Brigade all around Iraq.

    Far more deadly place? Not for Iraqis who didn't support Saddam. It's true that Iran is closer to having nukes than ever before. Jeez, someone wanna do something about that before we have to?

  • 0

    IvanCoughalot

    Iraq was attacked precisely because they did not have weapons. North Korea will never be attacked because we know they do have weapons. Seems to be a very good reason for Iran to arm itself. It was never an issue when Israel went nuclear, for some reason.

    Blair made 15 million pounds last year. Not a bad little earner, cracking jokes for your paymasters while your country lies wasted by a debt you created.

    Chickenhawk: Term often used to define a man who got five deferments when called upon to serve his country, because he had "other priorities", yet who expects poor people's kids to fight and die in a war he engineered to the vast profit of Halliburton, and therefore himself.

  • 0

    SebastianFlyte

    Would love to see that blithering idiot Bush try to even understand the questions, let alone answer them. Hope he finds his way there, hope he gets pelted with rotten tomatoes as he leaves. Good riddance to the idiot war criminal!

  • 0

    Sarge

    "Iraq was attacked precisely because they did not have weapons"

    That must be why thousands of coalition troops were wearing chemical garb and had masks at the ready at the outset of the liberation. Because they knew Iraq had no chemical weapons.

    "Blair made 15 million pounds last year"

    Oh, the horrors.

    "That blithering idiot Bush"

    I hear there are a bunch of billboards going up with Bush's photo and the caption "Miss me yet?"

  • 0

    sharpie

    how long has this inquiry been going on for??? it's just now starting to focus on bush and cheney??? talk about a waste of time and taxpayer's money. what next?

    fk the inquiry, send the idiots to the hague!!!

  • 0

    diggerdog

    pointless inquiry as it will not uncover the truth. Which is that bush and blair are controlled by people behind the scenes. The money men of the world, who have been after afganistan and iraq for a while now. They created the guise of terrorism, had bush and blair flog it to us with their propaganda then they move in to take the prize. These are wars that will never end so the money men in the banks can keep on making their money. Bush and blair are just players they dont make the big calls. Take them down and nothing will change. Focus on Obama he is bush with a velvet glove. Everything bush started he is continuing.

  • 0

    Odogma

    Blair was vindicated. The Iraqi people are grateful.

    For Americans I think we can safely say Britain is still a loyal, or rather, a very dutiful ally, though Obama is doing his best to ruin that partnership as well. The only inquiry needed should focus on the 1920s and address the lunacy of official foreign policy the then-dying British empire implemented. The free world - and in particular its protector the United States - need confirmation that any residual hubris and delusions of British grandeur have been thoroughly extinguished.

Back to top

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all