Tony Blair's donation to the Royal British Legion (114)
Iuchi_Zien: The dossier on Saddam's fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction? I suggest you read up on the enquiry being held about the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.
Link to this 'lie' please.
He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
Link to this 'lie' please.
He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
One thing I do know is that if he was using the same intel that Bush had, he is not lying and thus is not guilty of anything so, I ask you to submit your original dossier source rather than send me on some wild goose chase for your version of a truth that fits your reality thanks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: The dossier on Saddam's fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction? I suggest you read up on the enquiry being held about the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.
Link to this 'lie' please.
He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
Link to this 'lie' please.
He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
One thing I do know is that if he was using the same intel that Bush had, he is not lying and thus is not guilty of anything so, I ask you to submit your original dossier source rather than send me on some wild goose chase for your version of a truth that fits your reality thanks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: The dossier on Saddam's fabled Weapons of Mass Destruction? I suggest you read up on the enquiry being held about the UK's involvement in the Iraq war.
Link to this 'lie' please.
Iuchi_Zien: He used a report he KNEW to be composed of conjecture and 'worst case scenario'. He claimed the dossier was accurate when sections of the UK intelligence have said on record, at the enquiry, that the claims made by the report were known to be no more than rumour and that he had been told this. He claimed he knew more, and that we should 'trust him', his words. That I call deception, he implied that there was more information he couldn't reveal in the report on Saddam's non existent weapons, well yes there was, that the whole dossier was a pile of cobblers!
One thing I do know is that if he was using the same intel that Bush had, he is not lying and thus is not guilty of anything so, I ask you to submit your original dossier source rather than send me on some wild goose chase for your version of a truth that fits your reality thanks.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: He didn't think so!
Huh? What do you mean by that?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Huh? What do you mean by that?
In the UK the prime minister is the first minister, he is not a President, he is the chairperson of the cabinet of ministers. Decisions are supposed to be made by the cabinet NOT the prime minister. Nobody had bothered to explain this to President Blair who, according to ex-ministers in his own government claim he came in told everybody what he had decided and left. That is not government by cabinet, that is government by President (see also Mrs Thatcher who behaved similarly)
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: Link to this 'lie' please.
Read what I wrote,
In response to: Blair, whether he ACTUALLY lied or not, DELIBERATELY deceived the British public
Now what lie are YOU talking about?
Albertaghost:
One thing I do know is that if he was using the same intel that Bush had, he is not lying and thus is not guilty of anything so, I ask you to submit your original dossier source rather than send me on some wild goose chase for your version of a truth that fits your reality thanks.
One thing I do know is that if he was using the same intel that Bush had, he is not lying and thus is not guilty of anything so, I ask you to submit your original dossier source rather than send me on some wild goose chase for your version of a truth that fits your reality thanks.
<www.iraqinquiry.org.uk> contains all the information about the deceptions perpetrated upon the British public by Blair and his staff, I don't say government, because according to statements made by a number of ministers serving in the government at the time they were lied to as well
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html>
if you look at the iraqenquiry.org.uk website you can download comments made to the enquiry by Claire Short who was one of a NUMBER of ministers who accused Blair of deception.
Good enough for you? Or do I need to go get a written signed statement (made under oath) from the ministers to satisfy you?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: Read what I wrote,
Now what lie are YOU talking about?
<www.iraqinquiry.org.uk> contains all the information about the deceptions perpetrated upon the British public by Blair and his staff, I don't say government, because according to statements made by a number of ministers serving in the government at the time they were lied to as well
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html>
if you look at the iraqenquiry.org.uk website you can download comments made to the enquiry by Claire Short who was one of a NUMBER of ministers who accused Blair of deception.
Good enough for you? Or do I need to go get a written signed statement (made under oath) from the ministers to satisfy you?
Now what lie are YOU talking about?
<www.iraqinquiry.org.uk> contains all the information about the deceptions perpetrated upon the British public by Blair and his staff, I don't say government, because according to statements made by a number of ministers serving in the government at the time they were lied to as well
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html>
if you look at the iraqenquiry.org.uk website you can download comments made to the enquiry by Claire Short who was one of a NUMBER of ministers who accused Blair of deception.
Good enough for you? Or do I need to go get a written signed statement (made under oath) from the ministers to satisfy you?
John Smith, Robin Cook, David Kelly! Seems that people who get in Mr. Blair's way seem to pop off in either mysterious or suspiscious circumstances!
------ This thread is Archived ------
Godsgift: John Smith, Robin Cook, David Kelly! Seems that people who get in Mr. Blair's way seem to pop off in either mysterious or suspiscious circumstances!
That's a bit of a sweeping statement.Any evidence to back up your theory,and yes I do know that there is an investigation regarding the third name,but the other two?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien:
<www.iraqinquiry.org.uk> contains all the information about the deceptions perpetrated upon the British public by Blair and his staff, I don't say government, because according to statements made by a number of ministers serving in the government at the time they were lied to as well
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html>
if you look at the iraqenquiry.org.uk website you can download comments made to the enquiry by Claire Short who was one of a NUMBER of ministers who accused Blair of deception.
Good enough for you? Or do I need to go get a written signed statement (made under oath) from the ministers to satisfy you?
<www.iraqinquiry.org.uk> contains all the information about the deceptions perpetrated upon the British public by Blair and his staff, I don't say government, because according to statements made by a number of ministers serving in the government at the time they were lied to as well
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7137863/Iraq-inquiry-Tony-Blair-lied-and-misled-Parliament-claims-Clare-Short.html>
if you look at the iraqenquiry.org.uk website you can download comments made to the enquiry by Claire Short who was one of a NUMBER of ministers who accused Blair of deception.
Good enough for you? Or do I need to go get a written signed statement (made under oath) from the ministers to satisfy you?
Oh it's fine thanks. Just don't see the actual deception and lies that you seem to. Possibly you might direct me to the actual lie with a quote and a link to narrow it down somewhat.
Iuchi_Zien: In the UK the prime minister is the first minister, he is not a President,
So it is not a lie but rather a procedural irregularity that irks you. I wish you had stated this is all your gripe was about.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: I did however, it is a rather large site and, since it is you attempting to make the point that Blair lied it would be very nice of you if you could narrow it down to a few hundred pages.
What's particularly interesting is that the quote of Short you provided is not even from that inquiry but rather from the 2 Feb 2010 Telegraph which leads me to believe you haven't bothered to look at your 'Holy Grail' of slam Blair - the Iraq Inquiry.
Now, here is what Short actually said at the inquiry;
Nice rant!
What's particularly interesting is that the quote of Short you provided is not even from that inquiry but rather from the 2 Feb 2010 Telegraph which leads me to believe you haven't bothered to look at your 'Holy Grail' of slam Blair - the Iraq Inquiry.
Now, here is what Short actually said at the inquiry;
Nice rant!
I actually used the two quotes from the telegraph to save you the effort of searching through the Iraq Enquiry notes. Are you contradicting Claire Short when she says he lied to her?
Yes I have, obviously you HAVEN'T!
Perhaps you should have read Ms Shorts evidence a bit more thoroughly, or do you deliberately intend to misrepresent what she said?
question:
3 You say that we should have allowed more time, we should have 4 done it all through the UN, and I think you said earlier that 5 the Russians, the French
6 and the Germans were essentially saying that they would
7 be prepared to agree to military action but not at this
8 time.
9 But we have heard the argument from Jack Straw and
10 Tony Blair that President Chirac had said in his
11 broadcast on 10 March that they weren't going to agree
12 in any circumstances. The Prime Minister of the day,
13 Mr Blair, says:
14 "It wasn't that they would veto any resolution, it
15 is that they would veto a resolution that authorised
16 force in the event of breach. "
17 Wasn't it the case that --
3 You say that we should have allowed more time, we should have 4 done it all through the UN, and I think you said earlier that 5 the Russians, the French
6 and the Germans were essentially saying that they would
7 be prepared to agree to military action but not at this
8 time.
9 But we have heard the argument from Jack Straw and
10 Tony Blair that President Chirac had said in his
11 broadcast on 10 March that they weren't going to agree
12 in any circumstances. The Prime Minister of the day,
13 Mr Blair, says:
14 "It wasn't that they would veto any resolution, it
15 is that they would veto a resolution that authorised
16 force in the event of breach. "
17 Wasn't it the case that --
Claire Shorts reply:
18 That was -- in my view that was
19 a lie, a deliberate lie.
18 That was -- in my view that was
19 a lie, a deliberate lie.
As if that wasn't enough there is the deliberate deception of
In response to: Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wrote the letter to Mr Blair in July 2002 – a full eight months before the war – telling him that deposing Saddam Hussein was a blatant breach of international law.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
He even concealed the bombshell information from his own Cabinet, fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. The only people he told were a handful of cronies who were sworn to secrecy.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
He even concealed the bombshell information from his own Cabinet, fearing it would spark an anti-war revolt. The only people he told were a handful of cronies who were sworn to secrecy.
You can find the contents of the letter in the Iraq Enquiry document list.
But I suspect nothing will ever be enough for you, just consider yourself lucky you don't have such a scheming liar for a Prime minister. Oh, and if I DO decide to rant you WILL know.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: As some of you may be aware the ex Prime Minister of the U.K. is donating the royalties of his book to help the war wounded via the British Legion.Doesn't it mean that we now have to go out and buy the said book to boost the cophers.
What is your take on this "grand " gesture.
What is your take on this "grand " gesture.
I'm glad Blair feels guilty for his mistakes.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: I actually used the two quotes from the telegraph to save you the effort of searching through the Iraq Enquiry notes. Are you contradicting Claire Short when she says he lied to her?
Yes I have, obviously you HAVEN'T!
Perhaps you should have read Ms Shorts evidence a bit more thoroughly, or do you deliberately intend to misrepresent what she said?
Yes I have, obviously you HAVEN'T!
Perhaps you should have read Ms Shorts evidence a bit more thoroughly, or do you deliberately intend to misrepresent what she said?
Mr Blair, says: : "It wasn't that they would veto any resolution, it is that they would veto a resolution that authorized force in the event of breach. "
Short: That was -- in my view that was a lie, a deliberate lie.
BBC: French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.
Short: That was -- in my view that was a lie, a deliberate lie.
BBC: French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.
Guess she was wrong.
Iuchi_Zien:
As if that wasn't enough there is the deliberate deception of
You can find the contents of the letter in the Iraq Enquiry document list.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
As if that wasn't enough there is the deliberate deception of
You can find the contents of the letter in the Iraq Enquiry document list.
It was intended to make Mr Blair call off the invasion, but he ignored it. Instead, a panicking Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
Was it intended to get Blair to call off the invasion? Seems to me it was him providing legal advice if there was an invasion. After all, he was requested to do so at the meeting;
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions.: CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
the Memo from Goldsmith: 13. My view therefore is that in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action — but without it the position is, in my view, clear.
Three months later the 'fresh resolution' was obtained.
And now, at the inquiry, Goldsmith testified;
or not the military intervention was, as a matter of policy, right or wrong, I don't think is for me to judge, but so far as the legality is concerned, I did reach the view then, and still am of the opinion, that it was lawful.
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: BBC: French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war.
No you are wrong according to the statement YOU have posted above France would have voted against it NOT VETOED IT. Does it say Veto anywhere in your quote? Because Blair does? Or is Chirac now the liar?
In response to: Three months later the 'fresh resolution' was obtained.
What fresh resolution? show me because the resolution mentioned by Blair was dropped because 'he said' France would VETO it, not vote against it.
Of course Mr Goldsmith is going to admit that he was a coward and allowed himself to be bullied into changing his views isn't he! Talk about making his words stand on there end!
In response to:
My view therefore is that in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful . Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force , it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action — but without it the position is, in my view, clear.
My view therefore is that in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful . Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force , it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action — but without it the position is, in my view, clear.
So where is the resolution passed after July 30th which explicitly authorises military action thereby making the war, in the view of the attorney-general, legal? Because I don't see one, I just see someone trying to backtrack on a statement he had made to avoid looking like a coward who was bullied into changing his mind
Now lets deal with deception, you don't think that
In response to: Mr Blair issued instructions to gag Lord Goldsmith, banned him from attending Cabinet meetings and ordered a cover-up to stop the public finding out.
doesn't constitute a DELIBERATE deception of the Cabinet who WERE SUPPOSED to be running our government?------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: No you are wrong according to e statement YOU have posted above France would have voted against it NOT VETOED IT. Does it say Veto anywhere in your quote? Because Blair does? is Chirac now the liar?
Semantics. The article in context says;
"France will use Iraq veto
France has joined Russia in declaring itself ready to veto a new UN resolution which gives Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein until 17 March to disarm.
French President Jacques Chirac said his country would vote against any resolution that contains an ultimatum leading to war. "
To explain further to you, a veto in the UNSC is one of the five permanent members abstaining or simply voting 'no,' hence it is the same thing as a vote against.
Iuchi_Zien:
What fresh resolution? shome
What fresh resolution? shome
July 2002 was when Goldsmith gave his legal observations saying that "in the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach, military action would be unlawful."
The 'fresh resolution,' UNSC 1441 was passed in November 2002. You can find the text of the res here;
"Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area, "
That means any means including .... well, anything.
And, have a breakdown of what it is and why it is worded thus here;
"In UNSCR 1441 (2002), the Security Council unanimously decided again that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687. In the same resolution, the Council recalled that it had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.
The Council decided, however, to afford Iraq a “final opportunity” to comply with its disarmament obligations but warned that violations of UNSCR 1441 “shall constitute a further material breach.” Regrettably, Iraq failed to seize this final opportunity by failing to submit a currently accurate and complete declaration of its WMD holdings and failing to cooperate fully in the implementation of the resolution.
The legal authority to use force to address Iraq’s material breaches is clear. Nothing in UNSCR 1441 requires a further resolution, or other form of Security Council approval, to authorize the use of force. A “material breach” of the cease-fire conditions is the predicate for use of force against Iraq. And there can be no doubt that Iraq is in “material breach” of its obligations, as the Council reaffirmed in UNSCR 1441."
Iuchi_Zien: because the resolution mentioned by Blair was dropped because 'he said' France would VETO it, not vote against it.
They would have voted against it and thereby vetoed it.
In any case, Goldsmith advised Blair that it would be better to have express backing from the UN in a spelled out order rather than rely on 1441 which although France and Russia as well as the other thirteen members of the UNSC agreed to 1441, and the US, Spain, UK and others he felt were quite safe with taking action, he felt it would be better with the 'second resolution.'
When it became apparent France was going to VOTE AGAINST OR VETO it, they dropped it and returned to 1441 which "authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,"
------ This thread is Archived ------
Iuchi_Zien: Of course Mr Goldsmith is going to admit that he was a coward and allowed himself to be bullied into changing his views isn't he! Talk about making his words stand on there end!
Well of course - in your mind anyhow. Low on facts and high on hyperbole you can justify anything I suppose.
Iuchi_Zien:
So where is the resolution passed after July 30th which explicitly authorises military action thereby making the war, in the view of the attorney-general, legal? Because I don't see one, I just see someone trying to backtrack on a statement he had made to avoid looking like a coward who was bullied into changing his mind
So where is the resolution passed after July 30th which explicitly authorises military action thereby making the war, in the view of the attorney-general, legal? Because I don't see one, I just see someone trying to backtrack on a statement he had made to avoid looking like a coward who was bullied into changing his mind
No offense but your knowledge of this stuff is severely lacking. Please read up on the resolutions from 660 up to 1441 and the un tabled second resolution so we can at least talk on a somewhat equal footing. Oh,. Hans Blix's March 7th 2003 briefing to the UNSC is also quite important if you wish to keep up.
Iuchi_Zien: Now lets deal with deception, you don't think that
doesn't constitute a DELIBERATE deception of the Cabinet who WERE SUPPOSED to be running our government?
doesn't constitute a DELIBERATE deception of the Cabinet who WERE SUPPOSED to be running our government?
What, your rants or the truth of the matter which is, in this case and, from all you have shown so far, with a rudementary knowledge of UNSC procedure and the resolutions and timeline of the matter, Blair told the truth.
------ This thread is Archived ------
My GOD - You people are long winded ! 
------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: My GOD - You people are long winded !
facts require details Javski. Otherwise, we would just rant in short sentences and it would be he who has the loudest voice who would be right. When challenged for information, one should provide so the other understands.
In this case, the forum would look like this;
"You're wrong"
"Am not"
"Are so"
"Am not"
------ This thread is Archived ------
Albertaghost: facts require details Javski. Otherwise, we would just rant in short sentences and it would be he who has the loudest voice who would be right. When challenged for information, one should provide so the other understands.
In this case, the forum would look like this;
"You're wrong"
"Am not"
"Are so"
"Am not"
In this case, the forum would look like this;
"You're wrong"
"Am not"
"Are so"
"Am not"
Problem is Alberta - You accuse everyone else in every thread you enter of not presenting facts - when in fact they do - But you choose to either ignor their info or twist it around to fit your argument.......
------ This thread is Archived ------
jvaski: Problem is Alberta - You accuse everyone else in every thread you enter of not presenting facts - when in fact they do - But you choose to either ignor their info or twist it around to fit your argument.......
Example please.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Too many fake profiles here ...
How To Secure Your Gate
The world is as you see
the death nail for dating websites
It's been a long time....
Your Mental Health
"Emotions at the Crossroads"
Thinking out loud #3
Note
Blast From The Past
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
He didn't think so!