It gets worse...

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

It gets worse...

Post by starbug » Feb 6th 2004, 6:23 am

Well, over the last 2 days or so new levels of incompetence from the splendidly mediocre UK government have come to the fore.

Blair now reckons that the infamous '45 minute' claim that attacks could be launched using WMDs did not in fact mean long-range missiles that could threaten our interests in cyprus, and the NATO countries greece and turkey. No. What was meant, was 'battlefield' weapons.

What makes it worse is that Blair also claims not to have known that the 45 minute claim related to only 'battlefield' weapons. What??? You took my country to war based on incomplete knowledge?

Then they have the audacity to say 'well, the 45 mins claim wasn't ever a big deal at the time we decided to go to war.' Really? Well, that's not how I recall it... and try telling that to Dr. Kelly's family. The papers were full of the headlines that WMDs could be launched within 45 mins and were a direct threat to UK interests. Did anyone stand up from the government and say 'oh, hang on, that's not what we meant...' DID THEY BOLLOCKS.
they let the british public believe (even though I didn't believe them at the time the vast majority of people did) that we were under direct threat.

The defence secretary seems to have realised, along with a bunch of other politicians, that they were only talking battlefield weapons here. How can it be that the PM didn't know?

This whole thing makes me so sick. And I'm definitely smelling a big pile of BS about the whole thing. 'I didn't read the papers, I didn't see those headlines' says Hoon. Well all that indicates is that he had his head shoved up his own backside for months.

Here's what happened. Bush decided he was going to war. Instead of making a stand, Blair decided to be the fool that follows the fool, for the sake of cementing a relationship with a man who in my opinion stands slightly to the right of Gengis Khan. He lied (I really believe this), his cabinet lied, we went to war.

Well Blair, I hope you're happy. You can shove your 'Labour' party down the toilet where it belongs. I voted for you before, I won't be doing it again.

End of rant. For evidence, see here:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/sto ... 71,00.html

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Feb 6th 2004, 8:50 am

What a piss off. I hate Blair more and more each day. I can't imagine how it feels to have him be PM of your country (maybe I will once he finds an excuse to invade Canada). Strangely, in a dream I had last night someone told me that he was no longer PM and there was a new woman PM as the head of the Liberal Democrats (that should have tipped me off that I was dreaming). The first thing I did after getting my coffee this morning was check this site and it brought the dream back to mind right away. But now to the topic at hand.

The vast majority of 'intelligence' is gathered by observing the press of other countries. Surely someone in the intelligence agency must have at some point read about the 45 mins claim in a paper and could have passed on this information. This is just another reason that Blair's inquiry that will focus on intelligence received from spies is inadequate. Or perhaps another member of cabinet doesn't share Hoon's literacy problems and could have read the paper and explained it to him. Or they could have listened to the gist of what was being yelled at them from across the room by the opposition. Your government is spouting total BS and I hope the BBC doesn't let recent events cause them to shy away. They should hammer away at the contradictions using footage of statements made before the invasion and compare them to the equally untrue but opposing statements currently being made. The BBC could also give significant airtime to opposition members who wish to highlight the deception the government has perpetrated. I'm not sure how the BBC is currently conducting things as I don't have access to the station. They would run the risk of seeming biased but I say go for it. Soon enough it would be evident that if there is a bias it is just a bias against lies and injustice (the new pilars of the Labour party).

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Feb 6th 2004, 10:24 am

Hi Grim. You raise some really interesting points here...
grim4746 wrote: Or perhaps another member of cabinet doesn't share Hoon's literacy problems and could have read the paper and explained it to him.
Exactly. There are entire press offices out there dedicated to doing just that. His 'I was out of the country' argument just doesn't cut it.
grim4746 wrote: Or they could have listened to the gist of what was being yelled at them from across the room by the opposition.

This is an interesting point because the Conservative opposition backed the war all the way - they were in vociferous and open support right up until the point where Iain Duncan-Smith was forced out (who? I hear you cry... their leader who was forced out not too long ago. Now they have fascist Michael Howard instead). Nobody made the slightest issue about things in the opposition party, and this is one of the reasons IDS had to go - no effective opposition meant that Blair could do what he wanted.

So, it is a bit rich for them to come out now and start blaring about how this was absolutely abominable - they will have had access to the same 'intelligence' the government did. They voted for war just like the government.

To my mind, the only party that comes out smelling of roses here is the LibDems, who will be getting my vote next time around (not only on this issue too - they have trounced Labour on a number of issues to my mind, and we have a position where the LibDems are further to the left than the traditional left-ist party).

grim4746 wrote: I'm not sure how the BBC is currently conducting things as I don't have access to the station
well, it's been sort of mixed. On Radio 4 yesterday morning John Humphries let Hoon have it with both barrels, and made him look like the lying hypocrite that he is.

However this morning I checked their website for articles and couldn't find even a reference to this issue... I looked pretty hard, and it's definitely not being given the coverage it deserves. Neither is there much about it on TV.

Let us hope that our other media resources (guardian, independent, sky, ITN etc) make up for the lack of a BBC stand on this point.

At this point I utterly despair about the state of our political nation. This country is well and truly following Bush into the gutter. It is traditional not to think of the LibDems as a viable alternative to Blair or Howard, but I think they stand to make good gains in the next election, if not win it. Their politicians are intelligent, articulate, truthful, realistic, compassionate and egalitarian. I don't recall a time when any of them were caught in a lie.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Feb 6th 2004, 10:51 am

Hey Starbug.
starbug wrote: It is traditional not to think of the LibDems as a viable alternative to Blair or Howard, but I think they stand to make good gains in the next election, if not win it. Their politicians are intelligent, articulate, truthful, realistic, compassionate and egalitarian. I don't recall a time when any of them were caught in a lie.
This is something I've been wondering about for a few weeks. I was going to post a message asking you (or anyone else who knows) how the LibDems are viewed in the UK. I've really liked what I've been reading about them. Their politics seem in line with my views. I checked to see how many seats they had because I thought they sounded comparable to canada's New Democratic Party. they do seem a lot the same but I'm happy (for those in the UK anyway) that they sound more competent than the NDP. The NDP have great political positions but suck ass at follow through whenever they get elected and as a result the party has lost a lot of ground in recent years. However with the Liberal Party (who've been ruling for the last decade and possibly will continue to forever) has moved to the right a bit so the NDP is really the only leftist party remaining and has been gaining support again. I doubt they could win a federal election and i'm not sure i'd want them to. I'm really pulling for the LibDems in the UK and hope they can overcome the stigma of being the 'third party'.
starbug wrote:However this morning I checked their website for articles and couldn't find even a reference to this issue... I looked pretty hard, and it's definitely not being given the coverage it deserves.
I hadn't even thought of checking there website. These obvious ideas escape me too often. :oops: And I think I do get a BBC news station with my cable package but there are a lot of stations and I don't watch enough tv to have discovered them all yet never mind know where to find them. Canada's CBC radio sometimes broadcasts BBC radio. Acutally I love the CBC radio because late nights they play alternating internaional news reports so we get to hear a variety of world perspectives.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests