Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21
  1. #1
    Awake
    Guest
    The Times of London has now printed evidence that Blair admitted that Saddam
    had no WMD before the war began as was stated by he and Bush as reason for
    the illegal invasion of Iraq which has now resulted in the worst quagmire for America
    since Vietnam.

    Another soldier has been killed on Saturday and another seriously wounded.

    The death toll for U.S. soldiers is now 318 and the wounded -which consist of
    amputees and worse- numbers at over 1500.

    The casualties are mounting faster. By this time next year -and our lying scumbag
    leaders assure us that the quagmire shall continue through next year- the casualty
    count will number at least 5,000.

    For what?

    The Jews refuse to make peace and continue to steal the Palestinians land.

    This is what the illegal invasion is all about. The missing arms, legs, eyes and lives
    are all so the Jews can continue to steal Palestinian land and continue murdering
    Palestinians.

    When will the Jews in high places be held accountable for their murderous behavior?

    Why have Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other "neoCONservative" Jews
    disappeared from public view and public discussion?


    "At a cabinet meeting in late February 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq
    and Cook received cries of 'hear, hear' from cabinet colleagues when he argued
    that Arab governments regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle
    East. Cook records it was 'the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet'."



    October 05, 2003

    Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'
    David Cracknell, Political Editor



    TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam
    Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the
    former foreign secretary, reveals today.

    John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also
    "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.

    His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during
    the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They
    shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a
    real and present danger" to Britain.

    Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was
    a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary,
    when it first discussed military action against Iraq.

    The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against
    the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive
    phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq
    and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be
    successful, writes the former cabinet minister.

    Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to
    vote for war on a "false prospectus".

    He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private
    assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in
    the UN failed "and it would certainly have been in line with his previous
    practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British
    support".

    Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are
    the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely
    to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the
    war.

    The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the
    question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq
    dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence
    reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.

    Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending
    troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass
    destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister
    had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.

    Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by
    Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the
    political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook
    writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam
    probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons
    that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."

    Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was
    still trying to get a fresh UN resolution and Cook was still in government as
    leader of the Commons.

    Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's
    arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that
    Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could
    strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand
    battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them
    against British troops?'

    "[Blair replied:] 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment
    makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use'."

    Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent
    me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly
    not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt
    to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report
    would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.

    "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to
    argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass
    destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and
    capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now
    expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister
    and both had assented in it.

    "At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of
    chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a
    real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against
    city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we
    were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.

    "I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond
    operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have
    no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really
    had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was
    clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."

    Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that Saddam had no real weapons of mass
    destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they
    themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a
    credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did
    they really think Saddam represented?"

    He raises "the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons
    explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as they are aware
    that they may have misled parliament. If the government did come to know that
    the [United States] State Department did not trust the claims in the September
    dossier and that some of even their top experts did not believe them, should
    they not have told parliament before asking the Commons to vote for war on a
    false prospectus?"

    Cook decided not to publish his diaries ahead of last week's Labour conference
    in Bournemouth. Had he done so, his revelations would have ensured Blair
    received a much tougher ride from activists, many of whom are deeply uneasy
    about the war.

    He reveals that in the months leading up to the war Downing Street aides,
    including Alastair Campbell, Blair's former director of communications, and
    Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, were obsessed with not falling out with
    Washington.

    Cook discloses that several cabinet ministers had held misgivings about the
    war, not just himself and Clare Short. At a cabinet meeting in late February
    2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq and Cook received cries of
    "hear, hear" from cabinet colleagues when he argued that Arab governments
    regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle East. Cook
    records it was "the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet".

    His diary entry of March 7, 2002, a year before the war, says that Blunkett
    and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, raised objections at cabinet.

    "A momentous moment. A real discussion at cabinet. Tony permitted us to have
    the debate on Iraq which David [Blunkett] and I had asked for. For the first
    time that I can recall in five years, Tony was out on a limb."

    According to Cook, Blunkett asked Blair: "What has changed that suddenly gives
    us the legal right to take military action that we didn't have a few months
    ago?"

    Hewitt warned Blair: "We are in danger of being seen as close to President
    Bush, but without any influence over President Bush."

    But the prime minister was "totally unfazed" and, when Hewitt again raised
    objections at cabinet the following month, Blair refused to be boxed in,
    telling colleagues: "The time to debate the legal base for our action should
    be when we take that action."

    Cook reveals that Bush had wanted to hold a crucial war council with Blair in
    London on the weekend before the invasion of Iraq, a move that would have been
    a public relations disaster given public hostility to the war. Blair persuaded
    Bush to hold the summit in the Azores instead.

    By September last year most of the cabinet had fallen into line. At cabinet on
    September 23, before parliament was recalled from its summer break, Cook says:
    "Personally I found it a grim meeting. Much of the two hours was taken up with
    a succession of loyalty oaths for Tony's line."

    He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, "bravely" reported
    public disquiet that Britain was simply following Bush.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/




    See More: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal




  2. #2
    Big Poppa
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    Why is this posted in the Celluar newsgroups??? this has nothing to do
    with cell phones at all.

    [email protected]er (Awake) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > The Times of London has now printed evidence that Blair admitted that Saddam
    > had no WMD before the war began as was stated by he and Bush as reason for
    > the illegal invasion of Iraq which has now resulted in the worst quagmire for America
    > since Vietnam.
    >
    > Another soldier has been killed on Saturday and another seriously wounded.
    >
    > The death toll for U.S. soldiers is now 318 and the wounded -which consist of
    > amputees and worse- numbers at over 1500.
    >
    > The casualties are mounting faster. By this time next year -and our lying scumbag
    > leaders assure us that the quagmire shall continue through next year- the casualty
    > count will number at least 5,000.
    >
    > For what?
    >
    > The Jews refuse to make peace and continue to steal the Palestinians land.
    >
    > This is what the illegal invasion is all about. The missing arms, legs, eyes and lives
    > are all so the Jews can continue to steal Palestinian land and continue murdering
    > Palestinians.
    >
    > When will the Jews in high places be held accountable for their murderous behavior?
    >
    > Why have Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other "neoCONservative" Jews
    > disappeared from public view and public discussion?
    >
    >
    > "At a cabinet meeting in late February 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq
    > and Cook received cries of 'hear, hear' from cabinet colleagues when he argued
    > that Arab governments regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle
    > East. Cook records it was 'the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet'."
    >
    >
    >
    > October 05, 2003
    >
    > Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'
    > David Cracknell, Political Editor
    >
    >
    >
    > TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam
    > Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the
    > former foreign secretary, reveals today.
    >
    > John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also
    > "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.
    >
    > His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during
    > the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They
    > shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a
    > real and present danger" to Britain.
    >
    > Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was
    > a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary,
    > when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
    >
    > The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against
    > the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive
    > phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq
    > and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be
    > successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
    >
    > Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to
    > vote for war on a "false prospectus".
    >
    > He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private
    > assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in
    > the UN failed "and it would certainly have been in line with his previous
    > practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British
    > support".
    >
    > Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are
    > the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely
    > to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the
    > war.
    >
    > The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the
    > question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq
    > dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence
    > reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.
    >
    > Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending
    > troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass
    > destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister
    > had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
    >
    > Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by
    > Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the
    > political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook
    > writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam
    > probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons
    > that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."
    >
    > Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was
    > still trying to get a fresh UN resolution and Cook was still in government as
    > leader of the Commons.
    >
    > Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's
    > arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that
    > Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could
    > strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand
    > battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them
    > against British troops?'
    >
    > "[Blair replied:] 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment
    > makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use'."
    >
    > Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent
    > me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly
    > not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt
    > to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report
    > would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
    >
    > "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to
    > argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass
    > destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and
    > capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now
    > expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister
    > and both had assented in it.
    >
    > "At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of
    > chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a
    > real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against
    > city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we
    > were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.
    >
    > "I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond
    > operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have
    > no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really
    > had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was
    > clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."
    >
    > Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that Saddam had no real weapons of mass
    > destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they
    > themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a
    > credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did
    > they really think Saddam represented?"
    >
    > He raises "the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons
    > explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as they are aware
    > that they may have misled parliament. If the government did come to know that
    > the [United States] State Department did not trust the claims in the September
    > dossier and that some of even their top experts did not believe them, should
    > they not have told parliament before asking the Commons to vote for war on a
    > false prospectus?"
    >
    > Cook decided not to publish his diaries ahead of last week's Labour conference
    > in Bournemouth. Had he done so, his revelations would have ensured Blair
    > received a much tougher ride from activists, many of whom are deeply uneasy
    > about the war.
    >
    > He reveals that in the months leading up to the war Downing Street aides,
    > including Alastair Campbell, Blair's former director of communications, and
    > Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, were obsessed with not falling out with
    > Washington.
    >
    > Cook discloses that several cabinet ministers had held misgivings about the
    > war, not just himself and Clare Short. At a cabinet meeting in late February
    > 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq and Cook received cries of
    > "hear, hear" from cabinet colleagues when he argued that Arab governments
    > regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle East. Cook
    > records it was "the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet".
    >
    > His diary entry of March 7, 2002, a year before the war, says that Blunkett
    > and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, raised objections at cabinet.
    >
    > "A momentous moment. A real discussion at cabinet. Tony permitted us to have
    > the debate on Iraq which David [Blunkett] and I had asked for. For the first
    > time that I can recall in five years, Tony was out on a limb."
    >
    > According to Cook, Blunkett asked Blair: "What has changed that suddenly gives
    > us the legal right to take military action that we didn't have a few months
    > ago?"
    >
    > Hewitt warned Blair: "We are in danger of being seen as close to President
    > Bush, but without any influence over President Bush."
    >
    > But the prime minister was "totally unfazed" and, when Hewitt again raised
    > objections at cabinet the following month, Blair refused to be boxed in,
    > telling colleagues: "The time to debate the legal base for our action should
    > be when we take that action."
    >
    > Cook reveals that Bush had wanted to hold a crucial war council with Blair in
    > London on the weekend before the invasion of Iraq, a move that would have been
    > a public relations disaster given public hostility to the war. Blair persuaded
    > Bush to hold the summit in the Azores instead.
    >
    > By September last year most of the cabinet had fallen into line. At cabinet on
    > September 23, before parliament was recalled from its summer break, Cook says:
    > "Personally I found it a grim meeting. Much of the two hours was taken up with
    > a succession of loyalty oaths for Tony's line."
    >
    > He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, "bravely" reported
    > public disquiet that Britain was simply following Bush.
    >
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  3. #3
    Justin
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    First, their was a vial of botulism found, brought forward by a scientist
    who claimed that Sadam had ordered he keep it in his refrigerator.
    Also, orders from NK for Scud parts, AFTER resolution 1441.

    Not that you'd listen to reason, hell, the media's barely reporting these
    things.





  4. #4
    Booger
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal


    "Big Poppa" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Why is this posted in the Celluar newsgroups??? this has nothing to do
    > with cell phones at all.


    It also has nothing to do with reality. KOOKS abound.





  5. #5
    a_dude
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    well the reason all this is happening is cuz your all stupid apathetic
    walking monkeys

    keep walking hairless apes

    keep suffering

    if u don't wanna be an ape... revolt, our forefathers did (they were
    humans), we are just chicken blood

    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > First, their was a vial of botulism found, brought forward by a scientist
    > who claimed that Sadam had ordered he keep it in his refrigerator.
    > Also, orders from NK for Scud parts, AFTER resolution 1441.
    >
    > Not that you'd listen to reason, hell, the media's barely reporting these
    > things.
    >
    >






  6. #6
    Jason Voorhes
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    Doesn't this place have administrators? Please remove this thread,
    thanks. )


    "a_dude" <[email protected]> wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > well the reason all this is happening is cuz your all stupid apathetic
    > walking monkeys
    >
    > keep walking hairless apes
    >
    > keep suffering
    >
    > if u don't wanna be an ape... revolt, our forefathers did (they were
    > humans), we are just chicken blood
    >
    > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > First, their was a vial of botulism found, brought forward by a scientist
    > > who claimed that Sadam had ordered he keep it in his refrigerator.
    > > Also, orders from NK for Scud parts, AFTER resolution 1441.
    > >
    > > Not that you'd listen to reason, hell, the media's barely reporting these
    > > things.
    > >
    > >

    >
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  7. #7
    William Bray
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    Oh go away! This is a one sided, biased, report which has no bearing on
    cell phones.

    [email protected]er (Awake) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > The Times of London has now printed evidence that Blair admitted that Saddam
    > had no WMD before the war began as was stated by he and Bush as reason for
    > the illegal invasion of Iraq which has now resulted in the worst quagmire for America
    > since Vietnam.
    >
    > Another soldier has been killed on Saturday and another seriously wounded.
    >
    > The death toll for U.S. soldiers is now 318 and the wounded -which consist of
    > amputees and worse- numbers at over 1500.
    >
    > The casualties are mounting faster. By this time next year -and our lying scumbag
    > leaders assure us that the quagmire shall continue through next year- the casualty
    > count will number at least 5,000.
    >
    > For what?
    >
    > The Jews refuse to make peace and continue to steal the Palestinians land.
    >
    > This is what the illegal invasion is all about. The missing arms, legs, eyes and lives
    > are all so the Jews can continue to steal Palestinian land and continue murdering
    > Palestinians.
    >
    > When will the Jews in high places be held accountable for their murderous behavior?
    >
    > Why have Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and the other "neoCONservative" Jews
    > disappeared from public view and public discussion?
    >
    >
    > "At a cabinet meeting in late February 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq
    > and Cook received cries of 'hear, hear' from cabinet colleagues when he argued
    > that Arab governments regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle
    > East. Cook records it was 'the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet'."
    >
    >
    >
    > October 05, 2003
    >
    > Blair 'knew Iraq had no WMD'
    > David Cracknell, Political Editor
    >
    >
    >
    > TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam
    > Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the
    > former foreign secretary, reveals today.
    >
    > John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also
    > "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.
    >
    > His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during
    > the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They
    > shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a
    > real and present danger" to Britain.
    >
    > Cook, who resigned shortly before the invasion of Iraq, also reveals there was
    > a near mutiny in the cabinet, triggered by David Blunkett, the home secretary,
    > when it first discussed military action against Iraq.
    >
    > The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against
    > the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive
    > phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq
    > and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be
    > successful, writes the former cabinet minister.
    >
    > Cook suggests that the government misled the House of Commons and asked MPs to
    > vote for war on a "false prospectus".
    >
    > He also reveals that Blair earlier gave President Bill Clinton a private
    > assurance that he would support him in military action in Iraq if action in
    > the UN failed "and it would certainly have been in line with his previous
    > practice if he had given President Bush a private assurance of British
    > support".
    >
    > Cook's long-awaited diaries, published in book form as Point of Departure, are
    > the first memoir of any member of Blair's cabinet. His disclosures are likely
    > to lead to renewed calls for a judicial inquiry into the legitimacy of the
    > war.
    >
    > The Hutton inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly has dealt only with the
    > question of what the government believed ahead of publication of its Iraq
    > dossier in September 2002 and whether Downing Street hardened intelligence
    > reports to make the threat from Saddam seem more compelling.
    >
    > Cook today opens a new controversy. He says that just days before sending
    > troops into action, Blair no longer believed Saddam had weapons of mass
    > destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes, the claim the prime minister
    > had repeatedly made when arguing the case for war.
    >
    > Cook reveals that on February 20 this year he was given a briefing by
    > Scarlett. "The presentation was impressive in its integrity and shorn of the
    > political slant with which No 10 encumbers any intelligence assessment," Cook
    > writes in his diary. "My conclusion at the end of an hour is that Saddam
    > probably does not have weapons of mass destruction in the sense of weapons
    > that could be used against large-scale civilian targets."
    >
    > Two weeks later, on March 5, Cook saw Blair. At the time the government was
    > still trying to get a fresh UN resolution and Cook was still in government as
    > leader of the Commons.
    >
    > Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's
    > arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that
    > Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could
    > strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand
    > battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them
    > against British troops?'
    >
    > "[Blair replied:] 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment
    > makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use'."
    >
    > Cook continues: "There were two distinct elements to this exchange that sent
    > me away deeply troubled. The first was that the timetable to war was plainly
    > not driven by the progress of the UN weapons inspections. Tony made no attempt
    > to pretend that what Hans Blix [the UN's chief weapons inspector] might report
    > would make any difference to the countdown to invasion.
    >
    > "The second troubling element to our conversation was that Tony did not try to
    > argue me out of the view that Saddam did not have real weapons of mass
    > destruction that were designed for strategic use against city populations and
    > capable of being delivered with reliability over long distances. I had now
    > expressed that view to both the chairman of the JIC and to the prime minister
    > and both had assented in it.
    >
    > "At the time I did believe it likely that Saddam had retained a quantity of
    > chemical munitions for tactical use on the battlefield. These did not pose 'a
    > real and present danger to Britain' as they were not designed for use against
    > city populations and by definition could threaten British personnel only if we
    > were to deploy them on the battlefield within range of Iraqi artillery.
    >
    > "I had now twice been told that even those chemical shells had been put beyond
    > operational use in response to the pressure from intrusive inspections. I have
    > no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really
    > had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was
    > clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."
    >
    > Cook asks: "If No 10 accepted that Saddam had no real weapons of mass
    > destruction which he could credibly deliver against city targets and if they
    > themselves believed that he could not reassemble his chemical weapons in a
    > credible timescale for use on the battlefield, just how much of a threat did
    > they really think Saddam represented?"
    >
    > He raises "the gravest of political questions. The rules of the Commons
    > explicitly require ministers to correct the record as soon as they are aware
    > that they may have misled parliament. If the government did come to know that
    > the [United States] State Department did not trust the claims in the September
    > dossier and that some of even their top experts did not believe them, should
    > they not have told parliament before asking the Commons to vote for war on a
    > false prospectus?"
    >
    > Cook decided not to publish his diaries ahead of last week's Labour conference
    > in Bournemouth. Had he done so, his revelations would have ensured Blair
    > received a much tougher ride from activists, many of whom are deeply uneasy
    > about the war.
    >
    > He reveals that in the months leading up to the war Downing Street aides,
    > including Alastair Campbell, Blair's former director of communications, and
    > Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, were obsessed with not falling out with
    > Washington.
    >
    > Cook discloses that several cabinet ministers had held misgivings about the
    > war, not just himself and Clare Short. At a cabinet meeting in late February
    > 2002, Blunkett asked for a discussion on Iraq and Cook received cries of
    > "hear, hear" from cabinet colleagues when he argued that Arab governments
    > regarded Israel, not Iraq, as the real problem for the Middle East. Cook
    > records it was "the nearest thing I've heard to a mutiny in cabinet".
    >
    > His diary entry of March 7, 2002, a year before the war, says that Blunkett
    > and Patricia Hewitt, the trade secretary, raised objections at cabinet.
    >
    > "A momentous moment. A real discussion at cabinet. Tony permitted us to have
    > the debate on Iraq which David [Blunkett] and I had asked for. For the first
    > time that I can recall in five years, Tony was out on a limb."
    >
    > According to Cook, Blunkett asked Blair: "What has changed that suddenly gives
    > us the legal right to take military action that we didn't have a few months
    > ago?"
    >
    > Hewitt warned Blair: "We are in danger of being seen as close to President
    > Bush, but without any influence over President Bush."
    >
    > But the prime minister was "totally unfazed" and, when Hewitt again raised
    > objections at cabinet the following month, Blair refused to be boxed in,
    > telling colleagues: "The time to debate the legal base for our action should
    > be when we take that action."
    >
    > Cook reveals that Bush had wanted to hold a crucial war council with Blair in
    > London on the weekend before the invasion of Iraq, a move that would have been
    > a public relations disaster given public hostility to the war. Blair persuaded
    > Bush to hold the summit in the Azores instead.
    >
    > By September last year most of the cabinet had fallen into line. At cabinet on
    > September 23, before parliament was recalled from its summer break, Cook says:
    > "Personally I found it a grim meeting. Much of the two hours was taken up with
    > a succession of loyalty oaths for Tony's line."
    >
    > He says only Estelle Morris, then education secretary, "bravely" reported
    > public disquiet that Britain was simply following Bush.
    >
    > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
    >


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  8. #8
    Hopper
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal


    "Jason Voorhes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Doesn't this place have administrators? Please remove this thread,
    > thanks. )
    >


    No, that is both the curse and blessing of Usenet.





  9. #9
    Stuart
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal


    "William Bray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    > Oh go away! This is a one sided, biased, report which has no bearing on
    > cell phones.


    Yes you are absolutely right.

    Now if Saddam had stealthily established 3G transmitters in every western
    country - they would have posed as potentially greater threat as weapons of
    mass destruction according to another set of unbalanced sensationalised
    reports :-(

    --
    Stuart





  10. #10
    Arthur Hardy
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    Anybody that Belives that Sadam does not have any WMD needs to get there
    head out of there ASS. He's used them before on his own people, And Iraq has
    a hell of alot of sand to bury **** in.





  11. #11
    Todd Allcock
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > First, their was a vial of botulism found, brought forward by a scientist
    > who claimed that Sadam had ordered he keep it in his refrigerator.
    > Also, orders from NK for Scud parts, AFTER resolution 1441.
    >
    > Not that you'd listen to reason, hell, the media's barely reporting these
    > things.


    That's because both of those stories were discredited. A more
    interesting story, also barely reported by the media, is that over
    70% of Americans believe WMDs have already been found in Iraq,
    despite the fact the White House admits none have been found to
    date...

    Sorry to keep the off-topic thread going, but I'm just doing my
    part to lower that 70% figure... ;-)



  12. #12
    Camile Cardenas
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Arthur Hardy" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Anybody that Belives that Sadam does not have any WMD needs to get there
    > head out of there ASS. He's used them before on his own people, And Iraq has
    > a hell of alot of sand to bury **** in.


    Having them in 1988, is not the same as having them in 2003.



  13. #13
    Watch Your Back
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    1988? You weren't even a stain on the bed sheets in 1988.


    >
    > Having them in 1988, is not the same as having them in 2003.


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  14. #14
    William Bray
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    I didn't have a bedsheet then. And your point is?
    I have a son and two brother in laws over there right now. They report
    that the only WMD is what they they imported. But again, what does this
    have to do with cell phones?

    [email protected] (Watch Your Back) wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:
    > 1988? You weren't even a stain on the bed sheets in 1988.
    >
    >
    > >
    > > Having them in 1988, is not the same as having them in 2003.

    >
    > [posted via phonescoop.com]


    [posted via phonescoop.com]



  15. #15
    Al Klein
    Guest

    Re: The Murderous Lies of Bush, Blair and the Jew Cabal

    On Tue, 07 Oct 2003 03:43:20 -0000, [email protected] (Jason
    Voorhes) posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Doesn't this place have administrators?


    soc.college.admissions, one of the newsgroups to which this thread is
    being promulgated, probably does. The rest are all unmoderated.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast