Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
Blair Was Told No WMDs Before War
In March 2003, then-British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. However, new testimony from Parliament’s inquiry into the war reveals that, 10 days before the invasion, Blair was told Saddam had dismantled his chemical weapons. "We did, I think on March 10, get a report that chemical weapons might have remained disassembled and Saddam had not yet ordered their assembly,” said Sir William Ehrman, then the director of international security at the Foreign Office. “There was also a suggestion that Iraq might lack warheads capable of effective dispersal of agents." Ehrman said, however, that the intelligence made no difference. "From the counter-proliferation point of view it just proved that he had been lying and that he had prohibited items."
billybob
Plant - how do you spin this?
Plantagenet
Bil:
Same as yesterday. The dems were too cowardly to vote against the war in 2004 or to impeach Bush once hints of the WMD deception started to leak out in the US in 2005-6. Fortunately the Brits have the political courage to have an inquiry and make this information public now.
How do you spin it?
billybob
I agree (gross) that the democrats were cowardly and failed to impeach Bush - all politicians for the most part care only about their political future and how they are viewed in their constituency's eyes. I'm going out on a limb here and saying you were not one of those calling for his impeachment. And every person that DID call for his impeachment were subsequently labeled "anti-American" by the right (you). The Dems were cowardly (and in the minority). Seems you've reversed your tune a bit on Bush...and it seems like we are in a bad place now because of the missteps of the past. We do need to look forward...but it is really difficult not to look back with the rhetoric you (and others like you) spew against the current administration day-in and day-out.
Plantagenet
Hi bil
I appreciate you agreeing (gross) with me that the democrats were cowardly and failed to live up to their responsibilities to vote against the Iraq war and then failed again to impeach Bush and investigate the WMD controversy. Thank you for your honesty.
Its time to end the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. One of the reasons I have lost respect for the dems is precisely because they FAILED to impeach Bush even as they said the Iraq War was illegal and the DEMS FAILED to stop voting more and more money for the war and the surge even as they simultaneously proclaimed they were against the war.
The same thing is going on now----they dems SAY they want to withdraw the US troops from Iraq, but US troops are still there. The dems SAY they want to wind down the Afghanistan war, but here are the dems sending 35,000 more troops to Afghanistan in a new surge that Obama promises will "finish the job" (and who is still naive enough to believe that?).
cbeenthere
It was just a matter of enough signatures, Plantagenet, that's all, merely that, not cowardice. You see, you freaks were convinced Saddam Hussein not only had WMD's, but when that failed the mission became eliminating the most dangerous dictator that needed to be taken down in what --six weeks. HAHA You are such a joke.
johnsmith1882
Plant, you have a selective memory. The make-up of the house in 2003 was 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The Iraq resolution passed 77-23, with the 23 nays being 22 Democrats and the 1 Independent. That means all 51 Republicans voted to invade Iraq, with 26 Democrats. The Democrats were split, while the Republicans voted as a bloc.
The WMD deception leaked in 2004. The Democrats didn't gain the Senate for two years.
Of course, W should have been impeached for sending us to war with spurious evidence. You conveniently forget the political climate of the time...anyone who spoke out against the war was deemed a traitor or anti-American.
You blaming the Democrats is backwards reasoning; you have your answer now and you just work back and fill in the blanks to get to that answer.
Shenanigans!
Mauiboy
The Republicans and Dick Cheney protest too much about the Terrorists trials in NYC. They have gone from Meanies to Weenies in eight years. Are they really concerned about possible attacks on this country OR are they more concerned about what will come out about the way the Bush administration handled the aftermath of 9/11. What does Dick Cheney know that we don't know...yet?
Honchos
Maybe it's not so much cowardice as that the Democrats don't look at impeachment as trivially as the Republicans do. Judging from some of the talk from our resident wingnuts here, it's practically become their backup plan if they can't win an election. Impeachment should be used in rare, serious situations, not as a de facto coup d'etat.
This user is no longer registered.
n--Y--johnniegnick1936
I am also Bummed out on this guy he has showed nothing but weakness on all fronts the war with congress kissing Repuks asses. Sitting on my hands in 2010 and 2012 still waiting for a Change we can believe in
SimonSaize
read the series of post 9-11 works by John Gray one titled "Straw Dogs-Thoughts On Humans And Other Animals" & "Black Mass:Apocalyptic Religion And The Death Of Utopia"- John Gray worked under the Green Party in Great Britian, studied economic's and had a close relation with Margret Thatcher.
He documents the C.I.A. cases and briefings-which concluded there were no WMD's, in fact I think Google removed WMD's from their web searches to also prove.
retired-army-1SG
No surprises here...
Mauiboy
Do those who debate the health care issue and the fact that the US economy is coming out of the toilet realize that if we hadn't gone to war with Iraq, that there wouldn't be cluster-f'ck for a country there now, that our national debt might be at a reasonable level, that the dollar might actually have some strength because we wouldn't be bathing in debt and we could pay for a health care system that worked for all Americans. With that in mind, Happy Thanksgiving!
BipartisanCurious
Exactly my thoughts. Come on, when the Bush administration was changing its reasons for going to war with Iraq every month it became obvious that the beef was grade F. We finally ended up with, "because they love freedom" as our reason for fighting in Iraq.
Clearly they don't.
Goddamn the neocons, I'll take a hardcore social-conservative over those bastards every time. At least they just want to battle over your hypothetical soul. A neocon is an insane zealot who wants to conquer you and dominate every country in order to expand US hegemony and take a few 6 figure kickbacks along the way. Now that's dangerous!
piktor
Pathetic.
Garvagh
Let us keep in mind that the US concealed from the Brits, in the weeks and months before the invasion of Iraq, the fact the CIA had received confirmation from Iraq's own foreign minister, that Saddam had destroyed Iraq's WMD in the 1990s. (He was a mole.)
rnrsoul
Is this a shock to anyone? We were always going to war in Iraq, WMD's or not - everyone knew it.
Housebird
Blair --"What we have here is a misunderstanding"- ??????
Britain's leader in the Christian Crusade against the Muslims.
Maximum insult when Blair was appointed Middle East Envoy.
"Success" has enabled Blair a property portfolio of five homes.
Please subscribe to the BLAIR WAR CRIMES FOUNDATION.
http://blairfoundation.wordpress.com/letter/
.
Plantagenet
There is no "Christian crusade" against the Muslims.
jaydeekay
LOL... naive.
when-the-whip-comes-down
Planted agent fails to recall the time during the joint session of congress right after Bu$h warned of the "axis of evil" that "this is a new kind of crusade"... or the time right after 9/11 upon Bu$h's return to the white house, after hopping out of the helicopter saying "this is a new kind of crusade"... Or giving Eric Prince (self proclaimed crusader) the multibillion dollar contracts for Blackwater to be in Iraq.
pooryoric
I don't see this as a revelation.
They appear to be admitting that Iraq had disassembled WMD that Saddam had "not yet ordered" assembled.
This seems to support the argument for the invasion...
jaydeekay
We were told Iraq already HAD WMD's, not some parts that haven't been put together yet.
We were also told that Iraq posed a threat to the United States.
Garvagh
jaydeekay - - And let's remember that Iraq had chemical WMD during the Gulf War, but did not use it.
jaydeekay
That had been given to them by the US!!!
amapola101
Tony Blair,s life, .....well, its right before thanksgiving. let me not go into that.We were failed in leadership by both parties.I guess we are all humans beings, and like Drs bery,bary? their mistakes so do our mistaken leaders.It takes real , leadership to stand by your convictions, and not fall into the political game.Now we are going to continue going to war,Because no one can really say Its enough, its over,and useless.We are watching it, people do not want it, do not support it, billions and billions in a country where its citicens are suffering,and.....
amapola101
I meant to say billions and billions from us, where our citicens our suffering.and the money is thrown down the drain given to the Karzais,etc,etc,etc.
amapola101
Wars should be fought with reason purpose of mission, and end in sight.The people in the nation should support it, Care for its causes, that way they feel and share with the soldiers.i have said before,The payback to the VietNam Veterans, was so awfull. Unwelcomed,spit on,the soldiers, came back lunetics,broken families,wounded, and that was the price our troops paid.But I guess the President cannot say, no more we are pulling out of Iraq, pakistan and Afghan.it cannot be done.We fight and all of us should participate, if our homeland is attacked our safety is in peril, this is not a war..People are not envolved, do not want it do not support it,and the billions need to be spent home. but to our soldiers, your families and loved ones, thank You for doing What you are told to do.
when-the-whip-comes-down
amapola101, I have to dust off this speech Smedley Butler gave to the American Legion convention in 1931 and then an editorial of his... The war with Iraq is wrong on every level but Gen. Butlers disposition on war is aptly relevant.
I spent 33 years...being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism....
I spent 33 years...being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer for capitalism....
I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912.
I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1916. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916.
I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City boys to collect revenue in. I helped in the rape of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street....
In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested....I had...a swell racket. I was rewarded with honors, medals, promotions....I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate a racket in three cities. The Marines operated on three continents...
Speech to American Legion Convention,
August 21, 1931 in Warton, 1949
War is a Racket by Gen. Smedley Butler
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows?
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few - the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
War is a Racket, Gen. Smedley Butler, 1935
************ Butler encouraged the Hoover era "Bonus Marchers" to gather and protest for delivery of a promised World War I bonus for serving. It was the Great Depression and the men were starving and unable to support their families.
They assembled and were then attacked by U.S. troops led by Gen. Douglas Macarthur, at the order of President Hoover. Gen. Douglas Macarthur thought they were Communists. This and other stories defining the veterans as a threat were all nonsense.
This event was ironic, as well, since right wing elements in the nation would later solicit Gen. Butler to lead a similar protest that would have given the fascist element and excuse to stop FDR's efforts to end what they felt was socialism. Butler blew the whistle with a vengeance.
Who will be our Smedley Butler?
khepri
Amapola: The reason for spitting on returning soldiers during Viet Nam was that these soldiers had been doing the bidding of a corrupt Pentagon and NSC policy. Doubtless, these poor screws were just following orders and didn't have a bigger picture; and equally doubtless, the spitters were unaware of the ways that good individuals can be caught up in a military machine that requires them to do things that are not authentically connected with American security. It was a no-win situation all around: soldiers being victimized by the state, and citizen activists angry at the entire apparatus.
Our safety is not in peril in Afghanistan--or anywhere else. There can no longer be a justification for sending huge numbers of soldiers far away to fight an ephemeral enemy. The effort can't succeed, and it springs from faulty premises.
So, I don't say "thank you" to the troops for what they are doing at this moment. I understand they are stuck, and they are commanded to do shit work. But their courage and bravery are wasted in a cause that is pointless, and that could be addressed in so many better ways.
Even the slaves in Rome revolted at their treatment.
amapola101
A client of mine recently said, But the families support it. No not all the army families support. But they cannot go public and be seen as unpatrioticAnd the lack of jobs,opportunity and work has made persons join the army.To rebuild infrastructure,schools, etc. we have enough to rebuild here.And to the populace of those countries, they do not get our millions, it goes to their leaders politicinas, mullahs warlords,Just the other day the article said 53 billion dollars to waste in Iraq. do you know what every American family could do with those funds reinvested in them.??Who will help the US
khepri
Right you are. It is a HUGE problem. A dilemma. I am as discouraged as you are, and at the moment, don't know where to turn.
amapola101
I did not want to talk politics today. its very angry, and Depressing,We are in an ugly place in our country.Its better to talk about fashion,sex, chocolate ,food.So again to all from TDB,"Happy ,Healthy Thanksgiving "with all your loved ones and families and friends,and maybe our country will improve.
matthewbenzor
The" EVIDENCE " continues to pile up about Iraq being a Secret Society war and "NOT" a American war...! When are going to open your eyes people..........! This has got be the most disgusting thing in our histroy,America was run by a Dictatorship regime for the last 8years and the blood of americans and innocent women and children are on the hands of the Bush and Cheney regime and the Secret Society agenda.God have mercy on your souls
jaydeekay
You are only part right.
The Dems are as guilty as the GOP concerning this matter.
They are the same people.
khepri
Yes. And Obama is, alas, Bush-lite. I never thought I would say such a thing; but there you have it.
jaydeekay
I'm not ready to say that yet.
He was handed a big pile of sh!t with a HORRIBLE economy. To do the things he said he wanted to do would mean incredible social change... and just look at the reaction from the loons at what LITTLE has been done so far.
And there it is... he isn't doing much so the loons are out in force... so what do you think would happen if he WAS doing those things he wants to do, all at once?
I'm thinking the loons would be causing a chaos of the likes not seen since the 60's... maybe a sort never seen before in this country. FULL force... claiming that this "half-AMERICAN, really a MUSLIM... this HUSSEIN is turning our country over to the communists, I mean socialists, I mean Muslims... I mean ILLUMINATI!!!
Think what it would be like...
when-the-whip-comes-down
And the dictatorship continues.
Garvagh
Tony Blair probably could have delayed the US invasion of Iraq, and perhaps even have prevented it from taking place. Stunning failure of judgement on his part.
when-the-whip-comes-down
That is naive thinking... with the billions of dollars on the line and "a new kind of crusade" anybody that got in the way... was taken out... and I don't mean dancing. I would like to go into more detail but every time I do... my internet service gets fu ked with.
Garvagh
when-the-whip-comes-down --The British support for the build-up to the invasion of Iraq was critically important, especially the availability of the UK as "verification" of Bush's false contention (in his 2003 State of the Union address) that Iraq was seeking "uranium" "from Africa". This was an oblique reference to the forged documents purporting to show Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake from Niger- - documents the CIA knew were spurious two years before the moron gave his 2003 State of the Union address. Colin Powell, of course, was totally pathetic on this matter.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.