PDA

View Full Version : Blair's 45 minute claim based on hearsay


Sayhey
Aug 15, 2003, 11:10 PM
Tony Blair's famous claim that Iraq's WMDs were ready to be used within 45 minutes of Saddam giving the order turns out to be based on the flimsiest of hearsay evidence according to this Guardian report:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1020033,00.html

If this is the kind of "rock-solid" evidence Blair relied on to take his country to war then he may have a lot to explain.

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 12:37 AM
i'm reminded of an alleged conversation that is sometimes attributed to churchill, sometimes to oscar wilde:

him: madam, would you sleep w/ me for 1 million pounds?
her: yes.
him: would you sleep w/ me for 10 pounds?
her: sir, what sort of woman do you think i am?
him: we've established that, now we're just haggling over price.

so maybe the one uncorroborated source told the other "45 years" and the various intelligence agencies merely haggled over the time estimate.

Desertrat
Aug 16, 2003, 12:41 AM
For an opinion of the various ramifications of the War on Terror, check out http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/home.html

Go ahead and start with #25 and scroll down.

Warning: Graphic language.

'Rat

zimv20
Aug 16, 2003, 01:28 AM
i'm a big fan of gywo.

toontra
Aug 16, 2003, 03:23 AM
I think that over the coming weeks and months the truth about why the UK joined the US invading Iraq, despite the protests of millions of its citizens, will start to emerge, and if we find that the government misled parliament or the people in order to achieve this (as would appear to be the case from this story), Blair will be finished, and good riddance! He will have his "friend" George to thank.

Mind you, given his huge popularity in the US, his future income as an after-dinner speaker is assured. Maybe he should be phoning Ollie North's agent in readiness!

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by toontra
I think that over the coming weeks and months the truth about why the UK joined the US invading Iraq, despite the protests of millions of its citizens, will start to emerge, and if we find that the government misled parliament or the people in order to achieve this (as would appear to be the case from this story), Blair will be finished, and good riddance! He will have his "friend" George to thank.

Mind you, given his huge popularity in the US, his future income as an after-dinner speaker is assured. Maybe he should be phoning Ollie North's agent in readiness!

Ah,and there is the advantage to a parlimentary system! In Britain you can get rid of a PM in short order; in the US we have to wait until the next scheduled election. I know, the impeachment happy folks among us will disagree, but realistically unless Bush pisses off Tom DeLay real bad he's in until January 2005.

toontra
Aug 16, 2003, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Sayhey
Ah,and there is the advantage to a parliamentary system! In Britain you can get rid of a PM in short order

It's unlikely to come to that, Sayhay. The most likely scenario as it stands is that there will be a couple of sacrifices (probably Geoff Hoon the defense secretary, and Alistair Campbell) and Blair will stagger on till the next election (2005-6).

For Blair to be ousted would require some very damning evidence that he, personally, was involved in misleading the House of Commons. That may still happen, but I somehow doubt that the paper trail will lead to him.

IJ Reilly
Aug 16, 2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by toontra
It's unlikely to come to that, Sayhay. The most likely scenario as it stands is that there will be a couple of sacrifices (probably Geoff Hoon the defense secretary, and Alistair Campbell) and Blair will stagger on till the next election (2005-6).

For Blair to be ousted would require some very damning evidence that he, personally, was involved in misleading the House of Commons. That may still happen, but I somehow doubt that the paper trail will lead to him.

Ah, good old "plausible deniability" -- it's the same in both countries. Reminds me of that classic line from "Yes, Minister,"

"But minister, the Official Secrets Act is not about protecting secrets, it's about protecting officials. "

Sayhey
Aug 16, 2003, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by toontra
It's unlikely to come to that, Sayhay.

I was only trying to be optimistic. ;)