That's a wrap.

[Black Dog]

Snipe hunt over

Intelligence officials have confirmed the US has stopped searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

They say the chief US investigator, Charles Duelfer, is not planning to return to the country.

Mr Duelfer reported last year that Iraq had no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons at the time of the US-led invasion nearly two years ago.

...because I never miss a chance to remind people that the main excuse for the was false.

[Tawasakm]

It absolutely the final nail in the coffin and no mistake.

What staggers me however are the number of people who will say that it doesn't matter. Even if there are other, valid, arguments which support the invasion of Iraq none of them, in any way, justify or mitigate this great lie.

I'll stand back and await the inevitable disagreement from those who think that it does not matter that the President launched a war without UN backing on the premise of a lie (or lets call it bad information...).

[Black Dog]

I'll stand back and await the inevitable disagreement from those who think that it does not matter that the President launched a war without UN backing on the premise of a lie (or lets call it bad information...).

Now you've done it. Now we're going to get inundated with bloviating about "Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire!" and some such (even though legal opinion is divided.)

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Tawasakm,

What staggers me however are the number of people who will say that it doesn't matter.

I'll stand back and await the inevitable disagreement from those who think that it does not matter that the President launched a war without UN backing on the premise of a lie

Unfortunately, the peanut gallery is full of parrots.

The answer you won't get will be..."But Pres. Bush told me Saddam intended to get more WMD's in the future(because Bush is a mind-reader), He said Saddam was evil, and must be removed so the Muslims can be forced to have democracy!"

The 'right' will parrot this nonsense because that is what they have been told to believe. I am presently reading the 9/11 Commission Report, and it is quite revealing regarding the 'gross errors' of the US gov't, and the misinformation I have seen in the media, especially about Clinton. The book 'Disarming Iraq' by hans Blix is another intersting read. While Blix is on the side of those who think that Saddam should have been removed anyway, he disagreed with the unilateral action taken by the US/UK and believes the invasion was decided upon before the expiry of the US/UK's resolution anyway. He was on the inside, so I tend to believe that his suspicions were correct.

[PocketRocket]

While Blix is on the side of those who think that Saddam should have been removed anyway, he disagreed with the unilateral action taken by the US/UK and believes the invasion was decided upon before the expiry of the US/UK's resolution anyway. He was on the inside, so I tend to believe that his suspicions were correct.

The number of people who were on the "inside" when the war began, who came forward and pointed out discrepancies, is alarmingly huge.

And each of these in turn has been discredited by a smear campaign, each in their turn, as they came forward.

I've been saying since the war began that Iraq is a war based on lies, or at the very least, hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy. To use the UN resolution as an excuse to invade, when that invasion is AGAINST the will of the UN, well, I guess when Bush said that the UN had become "irrelevant" he only meant the parts of the UN that were not convenient to his purposes.

And yet, later on, he asks the UN for help making repairs in Iraq.

I guess UN money and troops are not so "irrelevant" when Bush needs them.

A hypocrite of the first order. GWB.

[Tawasakm]

Now you've done it. Now we're going to get inundated with bloviating about "Iraq violated the 1991 cease-fire!" and some such (even though legal opinion is divided.)

Well isn't that astonishing? It never happened. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there aren't that many people around who are still willing to excuse this lie.

Would that indicated some fundamental shift in thought do you think?

Edited February 14, 2005 by Tawasakm

[Black Dog]

Well isn't that astonishing? It never happened. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps there aren't that many people around who are still willing to excuse this lie.

Would that indicated some fundamental shift in thought do you think?

You haven't been reading the right threads.

[Tawasakm]

Hmmmm my apologies - I have definitely fallen behind on my reading here.

Although I do remember reading some of that thread. From memory it is a debate on the legal staus of the war?

Which isn't really addressing the issue of 'the lie' I guess I should read it instead of mindlessly speculating about it.

To work.