in 2002 to invade Iraq
War Deal.
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| LONDON - Reports in the British media this month based on documents indicating that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair had conditionally agreed by July 2002 to invade Iraq appear to have blown over quickly in Britain. But in the United States, where the reports at first received scant attention, there has been a growing groundswell of indignation among critics of the Bush White House, who say the documents help prove the leaders made a secret decision to oust Saddam Hussein nearly a year before launching their attack, shaped intelligence to that aim, and never seriously intended to avert the war through diplomacy. The documents, obtained by Michael Smith, a defense specialist writing for the Sunday Times of London, include minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting of Blair and his intelligence and military chiefs, a briefing paper for that meeting, and a Foreign Office legal opinion prepared before the summit of Blair and Bush in Crawford, Texas, on April 6-7, 2002. … |
Well…look who was feeding them some of this info…Bolton. Typical, if the facts don’t support your view of action needed then create the facts that do. Of course both parties do this but the ramifications of the Iraq war on the US economy, military and world leadership are too huge to let them off the hook. I say impeach!
Cruiser 
This was out there a few days ago - anyone seen it on any mainstream news in the US? I hear it has been well reported in the UK. that true?
Once again, mainstream media fails us in the US. 
agreed Tom (sigh) no sex no story what a journalist gonna do?
Cheers 
That’s old news, don’t you guys ever listen to the BBC? 
Ali
| Quote (Ali_T @ May 12 2005,16:12) |
| That's old news, don't you guys ever listen to the BBC? Ali |
Yeah. There were rumblings about this a looong time ago. Forgive us Ali-dude. We can be a little slow sometimes. Like Cruiser said, "no sex, no story." If a story is not about Spitney Brears having a freakin baby, or Brad and Angelina smooching on some beach, it doesn't make the mainstream news.
"Honey did you hear that the earth was going to explode tomorrow?" "SHUT UP!! They're talking about Anna-Nicoles liposuction!!!"
TG
Sadly true. Now we got shoot outs in L.A. being caught live and on camera. People getting whacked on air for ratings. "if it bleeds, it leads"
Hey TG, maybe we could borrow the “child whacking sticks”, make a game show outta it, get filthy rich!
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
| That’s old news, don’t you guys ever listen to the BBC? |
Yeah but how the h*ll did Blair get re-elected? To quote the British press, how could XXX number of people be so stupid?
| Quote (Mr Soul @ May 13 2005,11:37) |
| That's old news, don't you guys ever listen to the BBC? |
Yeah but how the h*ll did Blair get re-elected? To quote the British press, how could XXX number of people be so stupid?
As Ali explained, Blair was not re-elected, at least not exactly.
I’m sorry but I don’t see where Ali explained this?
Also this:
<!–QuoteBegin>
| Quote |
|
First of all, although the election has been brewing for weeks, and today, or rather, yesterday, was the election; please note: I’ve said nothing about it! The soul of discretion when it comes to my local political scene. [ ]Please note, some of you. [  ]Anyway Tom, we don’t vote for Tony Blair over here, or rather, only his own constituents do. He is not a president, just the first minister. The only person we vote for is our own Member of Parliament, or in reality, the political party they represent. So, most people over here prefer the Labour Party, and that’s who we voted for. The fact that the Labour Party chose Tony Blair as their leader is neither here nor there, because that fact can change at any time. And in all probability, it soon will. Anyway, it looks as if Labour will get in again, so I can finally go to bed contented. [ ]Ali |
That’s a quote from Ali from a happy birthday thread.
Toker, you must’ve been off playing guitar or something!
So who would you have had us vote for Mike, the Tories? (who make your Republicans look like a bunch of soggy left -wing liberals! LOL)
Anyway Mike, Tony Blair has not been a bad PM, nor a bad leader of the Labour Party.
He brought socialism back out of the wilderness following many years of Tory domination.
Britain has for the past 8 years enjoyed economic growth, even through the US and many other countries have been in a state of virtual recession.
His support of the US re the Iraq war brought a lot of hostility from many Brits, but I, like many others, felt ambiguous about the initial invasion, and were initially persuaded that the good might outweigh the bad.
There are many things I disagree with him upon. I respect him, but I don’t like him much, but his biggest failure was lying to the British public.
Not that that’s a surprise, he is a politician after all, but we’re sceptical about a politician who lies and is too stupid to hide the fact.
But, he’s a tired man. I think he’s had enough, and is aware that Britain has had enough of him too.
However, his personal majority in his own constituency was outstanding, and on the whole, I think despite his faults and failures, history will label him as a “good” leader of the Labour Party, and of the UK. (Not great, but certainly good).
Ali