Blair's 45 minute claim based on hearsay

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Sayhey, Aug 15, 2003.

  1. macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #1
    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.
     
  2. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #2
    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.
     
  3. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
  4. macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    chicago
    #4
    i'm a big fan of gywo.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #5
    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!
     
  6. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2003
    Location:
    London UK
    #7
    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.
     
  8. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #8
    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. "
     
  9. thread starter macrumors 68000

    Sayhey

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #9
    I was only trying to be optimistic. ;)
     

Share This Page