Report on justifications for Iraq war

[Xenocrates]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5329350.stm

The interesting line of this report is:

As recently as 21 August this year, President Bush said that Saddam "had relations with Zarqawi".

Had relations? Presumably Bush is confused between Saddam and Clinton here. This is understandable since Lewinsky and Zarqawi look so alike.

Meanwhile Saddam said: "I did not have relations with that man"

Monica Lewinsky was unavailable for comment.

Fox is continuing with the 9/11 - Iraq link BS even today; watch their preposterous spin here:

http://www.newshounds.us/2006/10/10/father_of_flight_93_hero_shamelessly_uses_his_sons_death_to_mislead_americans.php

How could Mr Bush say so recently that there was a connection in total contradiction of their intelligence report? Or, from a British perspective, how can the intelligence report not slavishly support the lies and nonsense?

Is Mr Bush being hung out to dry? Has he lost his grip?

It looks like the hypothesis that that Iraq was a fraudulently justified war and that it was a stepping stone on the way to a conflict with Iran is true. More interestingly, it looks like there's increasing resistance to this plan from within.

That's probably happening here too, but I have more confidence in the Americans than in our own government because the wrangling is more public.

 

[Tee Kay]

Iraq War was illegal and unjustified, but what can we do about it? Winners write history.

 

[Xenocrates]

I should have read the Guardian first; it seems the cracks are beginning to show here too. David Blunkett has revealed that Gordon Brown only supported the war to avoid the sack. That shows him to be a spineless ratbag IMO, but some will think more highly of him because of it .

This report also says:

"I said I thought we needed to determine what the strategy was going to be. We were fighting a 21st-century technological war but with a medieval strategy - ie surrounding the main urban areas and towns, cutting them off but not entering them, and pounding between but over desert. At that point Tony got really angry ... I said: 'Tony, I am not attacking you. I am trying to work out what we say, what we prepare people for and what they can expect from us, otherwise they only get it from the media.' ... Eventually Tony said that he was sorry."

Yes - the strategy was obviously wrong. Blunkett's blind BTW; sometimes you don't need eyes!

"If they had put Colin Powell in charge instead of letting [US defence secretary Donald] Rumsfeld loose with some of the dum-dums who are running the show on the ground, including our air marshal, it would have been a lot better," he writes at the end of March 2003 when US troops encountered difficulties in central Iraq.

Can this be true? Powell may have failed slightly less spectacularly, but I don't see him as being 'the missing ingredient' do you?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1892458,00.html