[drblow]

Stop kidding yourself that this is some kind of fringe argument. Stop kidding yourself that there is no proof of the lies. Jesus, the day after Brown claimed to have fully funded the army the papers were full of generals calling him a liar and that was only the other day - or didn't you see the news? Same as the day after Blair, Straw, Hoon etc.

The point of the inquiry is that the weight of public opinion about the deciet surrounding the Iraq war is so strong it could not be avoided. There must be recourse against governments acting in this manner. If thi inquiry proves to be as toothless as it appears, then there will probably be more inquiries - because there is a huge number of people who, unlike you, are not "bored" with the issue of illegal wars being fought in our name, and who are not content to be fed lies.

You have fooled yourself that the inquiry has not "proven" anything, and that all this stuff about lies must be some kind of lunacy from a minority fringe of society - you are way out of touch on both counts.

[General Mike]

Quote:

If thi inquiry proves to be as toothless as it appears, then there will probably be more inquiries

Honestly Blow, do you not realise that the inquiry was set up to be toothless? From the beginning it was clear that it was not to 'apportion blame' - which is the only thing you really care about.

It will not satisfy you or your ilk, and there will be no more inquiries after this one. When a Conservative government come in to power in May, with all the major players in the Iraq decision removed from office, this chapter will be effectively closed.

So, if I was you, I'd wring as much satisfaction from this inquiry as possible. You won't get another opportunity.

[drblow]

Quote:

When a Conservative government come in to power in May, with all the major players in the Iraq decision removed from office, this chapter will be effectively closed.

Confident, aren't you?

Quote:

So, if I was you, I'd wring as much satisfaction from this inquiry as possible.

Oh I have. Recent polls suggest that 8 out of 10 people in the UK agree that Blair lied. That's 8 out of 10.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2438

Enjoying the loony fringe Mike?

[FarqBllX]

Those involved have lied all the way thru' this enquiry. The enquiry is toothless because no one will be held to account. it is not a judicial enquiry - how i wish it was. The only thing that this enquiry will prove is just what a set of decietful a-holes our politicians are, and just how corrupt British politics has become. These aren't men of honour, they are mere spivs.

[General Mike]

Quote:

Confident, aren't you?

Yup.

Quote:

Recent polls suggest that 8 out of 10 people in the UK agree that Blair lied. That's 8 out of 10

If that were the extent of your claims, you wouldn't be called a loony.

I've never pretended this was a popular war or Blair a popular or trusted leader. But there's world of difference between believing he lied to take us into Iraq and subscribing to the insane narrative (starting with 9/11) that is drives you crazier by the day.

But like I said, opinion polls and a few elliptical snipes from Chilcott are as bad as it will get for Blair. Enjoy it while it you can.

[drblow]

Quote:

But there's world of difference between believing he lied to take us into Iraq and subscribing to the insane narrative (starting with 9/11) that is drives you crazier by the day.

Is there? The simple truth is that if the war had been necessary or moral then lying would not have been required. It is a simple step of logic to then deduce that the reasons we were lied to was to cover up other truths - why else would they have gone to the extent of lying that they did?

Now ... what other truths could they have been trying to cover up with their lies, eh?

Quote:

Enjoy it while it you can.

Oh I am, and I have been. Me & approximately 45 million other folk.

The inquiry will end, no doubt with some harsh judgments of the handling of the war and no action taken on any of the perpetrators. That doesn't mean that the whole thing will be forgotten by the 80% of the country that know they have been spoonfed bullshit.

[Shadowfax]

drblow wrote:

The inquiry will end, no doubt with some harsh judgments of the handling of the war and no action taken on any of the perpetrators. That doesn't mean that the whole thing will be forgotten by the 80% of the country that know they have been spoonfed bullshit.

None of it will be any better remembered than the previous 4 inquiries.

Oh dunno.... maybe a lot of people will remember that it cost a lot of money for no earthly reason and achieved precisely nothing except excite a few nutters , like you, for a few weeks

[General Mike]

Quote:

Is there?

Yes.

Quote:

The simple truth is that if the war had been necessary or moral then lying would not have been required.

Again, the war not being necessary or moral (both entirely subjective) would not make your analysis any more convincing. Millions of people opposed the war. A tiny fraction of certifiable obsessives share your beliefs about why it happened - 9/11 inside job, global conspiracy of oil companies etc etc.

Quote:

Oh I am, and I have been. Me & approximately 45 million other folk.

For most people who do think that Blair lied, this inquiry seems to have been immensely frustrating in terms of how accommodating its been to your 'villains'. You may think you've gotten your 'smoking gun', but that doesn't simply doesn't tally with the reality.

Quote:

None of it will be any better remembered than the previous 4 inquiries.

Which previous 4 inquiries?

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

For most people who do think that Blair lied, this inquiry seems to have been immensely frustrating in terms of how accommodating its been to your 'villains'. You may think you've gotten your 'smoking gun', but that doesn't simply doesn't tally with the reality

That's right. Ultimately we need audio tapes or transcripts to find out exactly if Blair lied. That'll be difficult though, his meetings in his 'den' next to the Cabinet office are unrecorded. So the smoking gun would probably be when he speaks to a Cabinet Secretary or Minister, etc, and Blair forgets he allowed a Civil Servant minute the meeting. Or a document of some kind.

He did appear to lie, in my view, when confronted about an interview he gave before he went to the inquiry saying he'd invade Iraq even if Saddam proved he disarmed or it was confirmed he didn't have them. He replied "I'd still think it would have been right to remove him". In the Inquiry he squirms claiming he didn't say what he meant, lol! And stressed only WMD disarmament was the aim.

[Shadowfax]

Redcarpet wrote:

He did appear to lie, in my view, when confronted about an interview he gave before he went to the inquiry saying he'd invade Iraq even if Saddam proved he disarmed or it was confirmed he didn't have them. He replied "I'd still think it would have been right to remove him". In the Inquiry he squirms claiming he didn't say what he meant, lol! And stressed only WMD disarmament was the aim.

Blair DIDNT lie.

Fern Britton asked " if you had known then what you know now........ would you still thought it right to remove him" In other words it is a hyperthetical question looking back before we invaded Iraq

Blair answered "yes" and that is entirely consistant with what he said before the invasion because Blair, like many of us, was entirely happy with regime change as the sole reason to get rid of Saddam. HOWEVER, it soon became apparent that regime change isnt enough of a reason under the U.N Charter and so to get support from France and Germany we then had to use other arguments such as WMD to overcome bloody silly U.N rules (presumably designed to allow the French to sit on their arses eating cheese a lot)

Thats when Blair got into trouble. He didnt lie at any stage- he made the mistake of trying to get the U.N on board to take the necessary action that eventually he took anyway without the toothless U.N earlier.
In fact our next bombing target should be the U.N. they are a waste of space and end up causing more problems than they ever solve

[Am_Fìobhach]

I think Al Qaeda tried that a few years ago, missed, and went into the nearby business centre big-time.

[drblow]

Shadowfax wrote:

In fact our next bombing target should be the U.N. they are a waste of space and end up causing more problems than they ever solve

Thanks for removing any doubt about the insane nature of your political approach. I don't know if anyone remembers the Kenny Everrett show from the 70's, but he did a sketch with a General in a tank ... I am thinking of it now.

You do not seem to even register the fact that Lord Goldsmith had told Blair that "regime change" is not a legally acceptable reason for an invasion - that is not an "opinion" that is a fact. Why do you think he had to make all that shit up about WMDs? In fact your awareness of the actual events appears to be very limited.

I guess you now think that Gordon Brown had supplied everything the army could have dreamed for just because he said so to the inquiry, and all those horrible generals who are saying that he is talking bollocks are just having a bad day?

[Redcarpet]

Quote:

Blair DIDNT lie.

Yes he did, he lied in his response to the Iraq Inquiry claiming he didn't mean he supported regime change. Because it's an illegal policy.

[Shadowfax]

drblow wrote:

I guess you now think that Gordon Brown had supplied everything the army could have dreamed for just because he said so to the inquiry, and all those horrible generals who are saying that he is talking bollocks are just having a bad day?

Bad guess

Its not looking good for Brown in that respect and if he didnt lie he came pretty close by using weasel words.
I'm guessing here that he is using the Bill Clinton defence i.e redefining the question asked in very narrow parameters. Brown said that he never refused a request for any new equipment and I suspect thats where his get out of jail free card comes in.

The generals are saying they had inadequate equipment and there will a big debate on what what was "adequate" and what wasnt. The problem is that generals ALWAYS claim that the budget was inadequate and they always will. Sheeeesh they had the same argument in WW2. If every soldier each had his own tank and his own plane one general or another would be asking for spares.

[drblow]

Quote:

Its not looking good for Brown in that respect and if he didnt lie he came pretty close by using weasel words.
I'm guessing here that he is using the Bill Clinton defence i.e redefining the question asked in very narrow parameters. Brown said that he never refused a request for any new equipment and I suspect thats where his get out of jail free card comes in.

So you agree that Brown was lying. Good.

Quote:

The generals are saying they had inadequate equipment and there will a big debate on what what was "adequate" and what wasnt. The problem is that generals ALWAYS claim that the budget was inadequate and they always will. Sheeeesh they had the same argument in WW2. If every soldier each had his own tank and his own plane one general or another would be asking for spares.

So, although you appear to believe that war is a great means of political advancement, that we should kill everyone who disagrees with our choice of "regime change" - including the UN - you think that the army is just moaning about not having enough equipment to protect their troops properly? I mean, I guess according to you they should be glad they even got guns, huh?

Your sidestep of the "regime change" claim you made above is very telling. You appear to have no actual knowledge of the events, and have filled in the huge gaps in your knowledge with make-believe based on your own psychotic approach. Why don't you try reading up on this issue a little before making such glaring errors?

[Shadowfax]

drblow wrote:

So you agree that Brown was lying. Good.

Nope, Not what i said.

Look if you cant read 2 sentences, its pretty pointless replying to your drivel.

Either stop posting or get someone you know, to read slowly to you.

[drblow]

I can read fine thanks. You are unhappy with my interpretation of your attempt at spin on Brown's statements? So what did you mean then? Brown was not "lying" just being economical with the truth?

Still not willing to address you lack of understanding of the "regime change" claim then, eh?

You are making a fool of yourself.

[Shadowfax]

drblow wrote:

You are making a fool of yourself.

Says the man that keeps posting but cant read

[Am_Fìobhach]

Nice to see you two playing together so well.

[drblow]

OK ... if I can't "read", please enlighten me as to what this meant then ...

Shadowfax wrote:

Its not looking good for Brown in that respect and if he didnt lie he came pretty close by using weasel words.

Not lying but coming pretty close? How does one accomplish such a feat?