Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush and Blair believed they were fighting "evil"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush and Blair believed they were fighting "evil"

    http://news.myway.com/top/article/id/25789...50|reuters.html

    Bush, Blair Misled by Intelligence on Iraq - Blix



    Mar 6, 9:45 AM (ET)

    LONDON (Reuters) - George Bush and Tony Blair, perhaps fired by a religious conviction they were battling evil, were seduced by unproven intelligence reports of Iraq's illegal weapons, former chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix says.
    In a book, excerpts of which Britain's Guardian newspaper published on Saturday, Blix says that in the run-up to war, the British prime minister and envoys of the U.S. president seemed convinced by the information from their intelligence agencies.

    Blix, who said he came under intense U.S. pressure to accept such intelligence as fact and was vilified for refusing, said he personally believed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein still had hidden illegal weapons but had told Blair he needed proof.

    "I added that it would prove paradoxical and absurd if 250,000 troops were to invade Iraq and find very little," he wrote about their meeting on February 20, 2003.

    "Blair responded that the intelligence was clear that Saddam had reconstituted his weapons of mass destruction program. Blair clearly relied on the intelligence and was convinced."

    Blix wrote that Western intelligence claims shared with his inspectors about, for example, mobile laboratories to make biological agents had proved embarrassing and added:

    "I am not aware of any other intelligence 'shared' with us that has been substantiated by credible evidence."

    "Perhaps Blair and Bush, both religious men, felt strengthened in their political determination by the feeling they were fighting evil, not only (arms) proliferation," he wrote.

    In the new book "Disarming Iraq -- The search for weapons of mass destruction," Blix said French intelligence services had also been convinced weapons of mass destruction remained in Iraq, but that President Jacques Chirac -- as staunchly opposed to war as Bush and Blair were in favor -- was more skeptical.

    "The intelligence services sometimes 'intoxicate each other'," he said, citing Chirac.

    Blix described an increasingly frantic round of diplomatic activity as the troop build-up in Kuwait gathered pace and the arms inspectors scouring Iraq came up empty-handed.

    Nearly a year after the invasion and Saddam's overthrow U.S.-led forces have not found any illegal weapons.

    Blair and Bush have both seen their popularity plummet over the unpopular war and its bloody aftermath.

    On Friday Blair raised the prospect of a rethink of international law and the United Nations to legalize pre-emptive strikes by foreign forces against so-called rogue states.
    “I’ve always stated, ‘I’m a Missouri Tiger,’” Anderson said March 13 after Arkansas fired John Pelphrey, adding, “I’m excited about what’s taking place here.”

    Asked then if he would talk to his players about the situation, he said, “They know me, and that’s where the trust comes in.

  • #3
    Has anyone read that apparently British Intelligence bugged Kofi Annan and Blix's phone during the crisis last year? Teflon Tony has had a lot of explaining and denying to do in the last week or so.

    Comment


    • #4
      I don't understand why Bush and Blair didn't just say:

      "We police the world. Saddam is a bastard, and kills his own people. Therefore, we are effectively removing him."

      Bush could've ended with a "Oh, by the way...Daddy told me to do it."


      Done.

      If Saddam could have armed a nuclear weapon in 8 minutes...Rand-McNally would be scrambling to remove Iran from the map.
      " Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

      Comment


      • #5
        That is the accusation, and it most likely is true.

        It just wasn't only Britian. All countries bugg the UN.
        Un-Official Sponsor of Randy Choate and Kevin Siegrist

        Comment


        • #6
          Originally posted by _STLfan_in_DFW@Mar 6 2004, 05:57 PM

          If Saddam could have armed a nuclear weapon in 8 minutes...Rand-McNally would be scrambling to remove Iran from the map.
          If Saddam could have had a nuclear weapon ready to go within 8 minutes, I'd venture to guess he would have used it a long time ago. The mere fact that he hadn't used one yet was evidence enough that he didn't have them.
          First Fan of the Halifax IceBreakers!

          Comment


          • #7
            Originally posted by glen a richter+Mar 6 2004, 06:01 PM-->
            QUOTE(glen a richter @ Mar 6 2004, 06:01 PM)

          • #8
            Originally posted by glen a richter+Mar 6 2004, 06:01 PM-->
            QUOTE(glen a richter @ Mar 6 2004, 06:01 PM)

          • #9
            Originally posted by WinstonSmith+Mar 6 2004, 06:02 PM-->
            QUOTE(WinstonSmith @ Mar 6 2004, 06:02 PM)
            Originally posted by glen a [email protected] 6 2004, 06:01 PM

          • #10
            glen.

            You piss me off.

            I haven't killed you.

            Does that mean I don't have a gun?
            When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

            Comment


            • #11
              you don't have the means to access me. even if saddam did have weapons (for the bazillionth time, he didn't) he never could have gotten them over here. he was NEVER a threat to america, only american interests (see: oil)
              First Fan of the Halifax IceBreakers!

              Comment


              • #12
                Logic.

                Just because I haven't done something doesn't mean that I can't do it or that I don't have the means to do it.

                You said you're great with logic.

                Dispute that.
                When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

                Comment


                • #13
                  I was pro-war NOT based on WMD..but based on the fact that Saddam was an asshole...and people got killed for no reason...like not winning a gold medal...

                  Hey...ASSHOLE...give us a pool, and maybe we'll win a damn swimming gold medal...

                  My issue is the "new government"....and the "new government" in Afghanistan...



                  I want someone to explain what the hell is going on with that.


                  We're great at kicking ass. We suck at installing government.

                  I don't disagree with the ass-kickings.

                  But when the f-ck are we going to be out of there, and let people run themselves again?
                  " Look, forget the myths the media's created about the White House--the truth is, these are not very bright guys, and things got out of hand."

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    Change the words around:

                    Just because I haven't done something doesn't mean that I can't do it or that I don't have the means to do it.

                    Just because I haven't been a 10 year old female doesn't mean that I can't be a 10 year old female or that I don't have the means to be a 10 year old female.

                    I am a 22 year old male. I have never been a 10 year old female, I can't possibly be a 10 year old female and I don't have the means to be a 10 year old female.

                    Rule 1 to disputing a claim is to alter the words to form a clearly impossible argument. If 1 case is false, all cases are false. Try again.
                    First Fan of the Halifax IceBreakers!

                    Comment


                    • #15
                      You're wrong, glen.

                      And you know it.

                      Maybe you're BSing about your logic prowess; sure seems like it.
                      When you say to your neighbor, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night if that's alright with you," what you really mean is, "We're having a loud party on Saturday night."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X