http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/07/06/iraq.main/index.html
He knows Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we were getting ready to invade; it’s just that we’ll never find them.
Whatever.
Far be it for me to defend our esteemed PM, but that article does not quote Tony Blair as saying he knew Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction when we were getting ready to invade ".
It’s the usual bollocks that we’ve come to expect to be fair, we’ve given up listening really.
See you don’t have to actually have WMDs to be a ‘threat in WMD terms’, so you? Obvious really…
That motherfucker is smoking some of that 'ol Limey crack. They must have a picture of him fucking a donkey or something, it’s the only logical explanation.
I read that article this morning, and my jaw dropped. I hope they boot his ass out, or however it works over there. A shame considering I used to like the guy.
Puts a whole 'nother dimension to “getting a piece of ass”.
I think Tony Castrato is mostly a good man who made one big whopping mistake, and doesn’t have the nerve to climb down. I fear that he loves pretending that he can wear Churchill’s shoes more than he loves England.
But pretty clearly he has decided that the best for England is to be America’s very very best buddy, kinda like that Warner Bros cartoon about the big brutal bulldog Spike and his yapping, timid sidekick.
So what are you saying ? You think Saddam Hussein should be Prime Minister of the UK ? Huh ?
Need I remind you that despite his lack of weapons, [Blair+CNN]"[Saddam] had the strategic capability (and) the intent" to use WMD.[/Blair+CNN]
I saw this article this morning, and found the title hilarious:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20040706/wl_nm/iraq_wmd_blair_dc
Blair Says May Not Find Iraq WMD, Defends Bush Ties
Defends Bush ties! I guess British folks’ opinion of Bush is so low that you have to defend your ties with him, like he was a mobster or something.
He’s not? 
You misunderstand Revtim. Blair was defending Bush’s ties .
Bwahaha, that’s right, I forgot about the hypnotie.
<monotone and with arms extended out zombielike>
OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, OBL and SH had ties, etc etc
From the original link:
“Blair and President Bush used Iraq’s alleged weapons program as a main reason for invading the country. So far the Iraq Survey Group, which is in charge of the hunt for illicit weapons, has yet to turn up any stockpiles.
The British leader said evidence uncovered by the group showed that Saddam had the “strategic capability” and intent to use such weapons.
“Whether they were hidden or removed or destroyed even, the plain fact is that he was in breach of United Nations resolutions,” Blair said.”
Who elected this man? :o
So because a massive country-wide search has failed to turn up any weapons of mass destruction, the leader of our country states as fact that the weapons were ‘hidden or removed or destroyed’.
Absolutely no chance they never existed. :wally
None at all. :smack:
We only have to look at the sheer brilliance of Saddam’s defence of Iraq (including his press spokesman) to realise that the massive caches of weapons could be easily ‘hidden or removed or destroyed’. Perhaps they were buried underneath Saddam’s hole in the ground. :rolleyes:
If only those US soldiers had dug deeper…
And so a politician (a breed of men so honest that they have never ever been caught lying ) assures us that Saddam was in fact in breach of UN regulations. And of course this means Bush and Blair weren’t.
Vote for f*cking Blair. Look at the evidence. Anyway, why would he lie?
Gaaaaaaaah.
Blair’s spin doctors have evidently told him that he can’t admit to being wrong, it’ll make him look weak.
Trouble is, if you are wrong, and don’t admit it, it doesn’t make you look strong, it just makes you look a twat.
Personally, I’m holding my nose and voting Lib Dem from here on out. You know it makes sense.
Yup.
Got any cites that GeeDubya’s reputation in Jolly Old is that bad? Haven’t heard that much about it on this side of the pond, lately, somehow got the impression that there had been a bit of rehab work, rep wise.
Gone up from “stinks on ice” to “bit of a cunt, really”, and poised to soar to “right wanker”?
I’m with Lord Ashtar…
Wake me up too early in the morning and I have the “intent” to use WMD. The fact that I don’t actually have them seems to be of pretty profound import as to wether bete-in-a-bad-mood should be treated as a serious threat.
Saddam didn’t have the wherewithall to seriously threaten America or the UK, however much he might have wanted to.
I haven’t managed to find any more recent cites, but here is a YouGov poll from November 2003 when Dubya visited Britain. Notice that 75% of people had “not much” or “none at all” confidence in Bush as President and that 60% thought that he is a danger to world peace.
Even with the so-called handover of power in Iraq, I can’t see how any of those will have improved by more than a percent or two. It’s not like he’s achieved anything. At all.
Can’t find any poll on Bush’s popularity in the UK but it’s safe to say he’s giving the Black Death and rabid ferrets in your underpants a stern run for their money. There’s a reason Blair hasn’t picked up his congressional medal.
Article below from the Observer political commentator.
Anecdotally only, but I’d say those figures are about right, probably on the low side (certainly among the people I interact with; family, friends, co-workers etc).
Anthony Charles Lynton Blair is a grinning fop. (His wife munts for England too)
So you will gather I am no fan (paid up tory IRL). However I do beleive that Blair (Wanker) really did believe all that stuff about WMDs. He is that stupid. He did think he was doing the right thing.
What he needs to do is look straight in the camera put on that Bob Monkhouse grin and say…
“The briefings I was given from the security services gave me reason to beleive that Saddam Hussein was in material breach of security council rulings, and we were left with no choice but to attack. THis now turns out to be wrong, but it was an honest mistake based on the information at the time.”
“however given that we have toppled one of the foulest reigemes in recent history we now have a responsibility to put things right. Thus, we will do whatever is necessary to bring security and democracy to a sovereign Iraq”
After all he’s a “pretty straight guy”.
Incidentally there is no way that Blair would EVER have used drugs - he’s too big a big girl’s blouse.
I think this ‘strategic capability’ probably is civil service doublespeak for saying that Iraq is in a strategicly important place - near to all that oil, Russia, Isreal and all them other Arab states.
So what is being said is that if Saddam had an effective army he would be in a good location to be a right royal pain in the arse, it doesn’t of course mean that he actually had the means to carry out threats at all, civil service doublespeak just lets you make up your own mind, but in a particular way based upon false assumtions.
Obviously he had ‘intent’, not a specific intent mind you, and again the old doublespeak pushes you to thinking that the intent Saddam has must only be of the very worst kind, it might also be true that his intent was to have Shish Kebab on a ed of home grown rice and a large brandy and cigars aftewards, intent could be anything at all.
Maybe I’ve been watching too much ‘Yes Minister’ or I’ve been working in the prison service too long.