No surprise there then.
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent
Unless there are still those daft enough to think it was because of al-queda or weapons of mass destruction.
I'll be charitable, I think they convinced thenselves what they wanted to vbelieve was true.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/ ... 9569.shtml
Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."
The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.
Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a devious lying hypocritical self serving sleazeball, and the MP's at the time weren't much better.
link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
gmc;1357898 wrote: No surprise there then.
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent
Unless there are still those daft enough to think it was because of al-queda or weapons of mass destruction.
I'll be charitable, I think they convinced thenselves what they wanted to vbelieve was true.
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War - CBS News
Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."
The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.
Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a devious lying hypocritical self serving sleazeball, and the MP's at the time weren't much better.
So why is Rumsfield allowed the charity - he, supposidly, had the best intelegence in the world to keep him informed!
Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq - UK Politics, UK - The Independent
Unless there are still those daft enough to think it was because of al-queda or weapons of mass destruction.
I'll be charitable, I think they convinced thenselves what they wanted to vbelieve was true.
Rumsfeld: It Would Be A Short War - CBS News
Rumsfeld also told radio listeners it is impossible Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction. "What it would prove is that the inspections process had been successfully defeated by the Iraqis if they find nothing."
The conflict with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld insisted.
Tony Blair, on the other hand, is a devious lying hypocritical self serving sleazeball, and the MP's at the time weren't much better.
So why is Rumsfield allowed the charity - he, supposidly, had the best intelegence in the world to keep him informed!
link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq
The alternative is that it was a thoroughly cynical manipulation of events for personal gain that has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of iraquis and thousands of his own countrymen killed or wounded. Having the best intelligence in the world is pintless if you are going to jsut read those bits that you already "know".
Of you look at PNAC and it's statement of principles - to which rumsfeld was one of the signatories - it reads like a 21st manifestation of manifest destiny. It's the kind of nonsense only an american could believe in, but having said that I think they really believed it and only saw what suited their world view. Hence the more charitable outlook. In the eighties he was in Iraq giving saddam satellite intelligence on Iranian trop movements, a few years later saddam is the bad guy. He has to be delusional to convince yourself you are doing the right thing. At least you could see how american interests could be served but how on earth does it suit ours?
Remember this bit from Robin Cook's Resignation speech?
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Tony Blair and our MP's have no excuse the pathetic thing is we let them get away with it, once it becamne clear there were no WMD's we shoud have pulled our troops. People seem to have forgotten that parliament is sivereign not the sodding prime minister or cabinet.
Libya's the same kind of thing all over again, our foreign policy in the middle east has always been about oil and before that controlling trade and the suez canal, There are british graveyards all over the middle east, all because of oil. We criticise gaddafi but say nothing about Bahrain, or the Yemen, and turn a blind eye to saudis helping to crush the uprising in Bahrain.
Of you look at PNAC and it's statement of principles - to which rumsfeld was one of the signatories - it reads like a 21st manifestation of manifest destiny. It's the kind of nonsense only an american could believe in, but having said that I think they really believed it and only saw what suited their world view. Hence the more charitable outlook. In the eighties he was in Iraq giving saddam satellite intelligence on Iranian trop movements, a few years later saddam is the bad guy. He has to be delusional to convince yourself you are doing the right thing. At least you could see how american interests could be served but how on earth does it suit ours?
Remember this bit from Robin Cook's Resignation speech?
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.
It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories.
Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?
Tony Blair and our MP's have no excuse the pathetic thing is we let them get away with it, once it becamne clear there were no WMD's we shoud have pulled our troops. People seem to have forgotten that parliament is sivereign not the sodding prime minister or cabinet.
Libya's the same kind of thing all over again, our foreign policy in the middle east has always been about oil and before that controlling trade and the suez canal, There are british graveyards all over the middle east, all because of oil. We criticise gaddafi but say nothing about Bahrain, or the Yemen, and turn a blind eye to saudis helping to crush the uprising in Bahrain.