Committee: Blair didn't intentionally mislead lawmakers on Iraq
- Thread starter Inkara1
- Start date
A.B.Normal
New Member
Who was the committee comprised of, impartial third party ,opposition party members or Blair appointees?
ris
New Member
it's no where near as clear cut as that - the parliamentary commitee is a cross-party commitee that investigates issues of concern. the government has agreed to this but resisted claims for an independent and more far reaching judicial review.
the wording is quite specific - tony blair has been cleared of deliberately misleading parliamnet but there have been serious conclusions on the way the uk government put together and delivered its dossiers on iraq. criticism of him appears to be in his 'misinterpreting' of the dossier to parliament.
aliaster campbell, blair's chief communications officer, was indeed cleared of falsifying intelligence but the accusation that he manipulated evidence was only cleared after the chairman cast his vote on a split commitee.
the commitee was quite damaging in its deliberation that the government should not have used some information in its dossier, notably the apparently unfounded accusation that iraq had capability to use wmd's in 45mins.
the wording is quite specific - tony blair has been cleared of deliberately misleading parliamnet but there have been serious conclusions on the way the uk government put together and delivered its dossiers on iraq. criticism of him appears to be in his 'misinterpreting' of the dossier to parliament.
aliaster campbell, blair's chief communications officer, was indeed cleared of falsifying intelligence but the accusation that he manipulated evidence was only cleared after the chairman cast his vote on a split commitee.
the commitee was quite damaging in its deliberation that the government should not have used some information in its dossier, notably the apparently unfounded accusation that iraq had capability to use wmd's in 45mins.
Aunty Em
Well-Known Member
I've never believed that Blair would deliberately mislead us, only that he and the rest of the government were misinformed by the so-called experts and read more into the situation than was there.
At heart I believe he is genuine, but he's dealing with a bureaucracy that has been in place for many years and is very entrenched in it's attitudes and practices and desperately needs updating.
The same can be said for the rest of our public "services".
At heart I believe he is genuine, but he's dealing with a bureaucracy that has been in place for many years and is very entrenched in it's attitudes and practices and desperately needs updating.
The same can be said for the rest of our public "services".
ris
New Member
i'd love to believe that blair is as sincere as his speeches but i can't forget the guy is a politician with some of the most devilish political spin merchants around. i am sure he believes in his convictions and the rightness of them but i can easily believe him making sure the dossiers fitted the projections he wanted to show.
current sources from whitehall aren't making this go away, or look any better at all:
iraq weapons 'likely not found'
current sources from whitehall aren't making this go away, or look any better at all:
iraq weapons 'likely not found'
Answer me this. If saddam no longer possesed NBCs, why didn't he show the UN inspectors proof of their demise? That would have been enough to end all of this. There would have been no war. He's still be in power, murdering & assaulting his citizenery at his pleasure. Doesn't make sense does it?
Also, answer this. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the only thing left in his arsenal was 200 litres of anthrax. Given the CIA World fact book that Iraq is
Also, answer this. Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that the only thing left in his arsenal was 200 litres of anthrax. Given the CIA World fact book that Iraq is
and California is
(you do the math) and he had his minnions bury them in half full 2-litre Pepsi bottles throughout his country, how long would it take you to find just one?
freako104
Well-Known Member
which is why theyre still looking gonz. as for the first statement, I cant answer that since i dont know what would constitute leit proof. photos? they can be altered. paperwork? shit man just type whatever the hell you want up and turn it in. what the hell proof do you want? dont take that as a personal attack just an answer tho I know its not the answer you want its what I got.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Gonz said:
Thats from your own post in the other thread.
Bush's claims far exceeded ANYTHING that has or will be found and his support staff are running for the hills now because they know they were part of this. Colin "I'll be your yes man" Powell has been hung out to dry with the lies he was forced to present to the UN and STILL you defend this ass and try to change the subject back to Clinton getting a blowjob or whatever it is you don't like about him. Find me somewhere that Bush ever answered an unscripted question with any intelligence so I figure out what the fuck you see in this guy that I don't.
Squiggy said:
I support the office, not the man. I still think there was something to Clinton's bombing of an "aspirin factory". 25 years from now, we'll see. I see a group of people that have far & away more information than I could even hope. Is it possible this whole thing was a "daddy's revenge". Sure. Not likely but possible. If Dubya the moron is so absolutely wrong then why have 3 consecutive presidents gone after him? There is far more to this story than meets the eye.
Squiggy
ThunderDick
Gonz said:
Thats my fucking point. They had the information that the information was bogus. And HE decided to present it to America as indisputable truth. Hes a fucking liar and he got people killed because of it...Those aren't cum stains on the American soldiers that died. They're bullet holes.