Britain Releases Secret File From Before Iraq War
LONDON - The British government released a once-secret draft document on Monday that was drawn up to justify going to war in Iraq, succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners.
The 32-page document, written by a former director of communications at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources to state that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before.
Yet the document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Saddam Hussein being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war.
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians: so far,” the author of the document, former journalist John Williams, wrote in late 2002.
“It is not speculative to suggest he would do so again if he could: he has done it. And we know that he is now re-equipping himself with chemical weapons, while seeking to extend the range of the missiles that would carry them.”
The much-disputed 45-minute threat was made in what came to be known as the “dodgy dossier”, a document the BBC subsequently alleged was “sexed up” to make the case for war stronger.
A hunt for who might lie behind the BBC’s reporting ensued, and a government weapons expert, David Kelly, later committed suicide, prompting a high-level inquiry into the affair.
“Rape Squads”
Britain had sought to prevent Williams’ draft being released because it argued that those who draft policy documents should not fear that their ideas might end up being made public.
But a freedom of information tribunal eventually ruled against them and last month ordered the draft to be released. The Foreign Office published it on its Web site on Monday.
Because Williams’ draft makes no mention of the 45-minute claim, but a later government dossier did, it had been suggested that some degree of “sexing up” must have taken place.
But the government said several people were working on draft documents at the same time and it was another dossier, drawn up by the Joint Intelligence Committee, that ultimately was used to make the case for going to war.
“The document produced by John Williams … was not commissioned as part of the formal drafting process and was not used as the basis for the dossier the government subsequently published,” Foreign Secretary David Miliband said.
As well as the claims about chemical and biological weapons — which were false as no such weapons were found after the invasion of Iraq — Williams’ draft accused Iraq of having government-run “rape squads” to intimidate the population.
“Rape is a standard method of intimidation by the regime,” his document says. “The government personnel card produced here (picture) identifies its holder, Aziz Saleh Ahmed, as a ‘fighter in the popular army’ whose activity is ‘violation of women’s honour: in other words, he is a professional rapist.”
A parenthetical note adds: (any more on these people? This is the ghastly single image of oppression we must get into people’s minds).”
Editing by Charles Dick
© 2008 Reuters
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians:”
The first people to use chemical weapons on Iraqis were the British in the 1920s.
This shows the crying need for historical knowledge of our involvement of Saddam from when at age 22 Our government hired him to assassinate Abdul Kassim, to when at 26 or gov. brought him to power - he became head of intelligence - in the 63 coup. The Baathists were ejected from that government, but not until he had killed 5000 people on a list of possible enemies - teachers journalists etc - given to him by the CIA. Then in 1968 we put him back in power. All the chemical weapon crimes he is alleged to have committed were committed with our blessings, chemicals, inteligence and direction. That is why they chanted “out with the apprentice, in with the master” or something to that effect in a Baghdad demonstration.
They know what almost no Americans know. We fired Saddam. Now we are discovering what a difficult job he had keeping Iraq safe for western exploitation, and ironically his big mistake was probably in allowing the Irqi standard of living to rise too high, thus cutting into western corporate profit. A lesson to other client dictators.
Are we forgetting agent orange used in the Vietnam War by the US….?
What is truly appalling is the U.K.’s all too willing connivance with Dubya, Cheney, & Co. in the Iraq misadventure, given their own historical experience in the country. It is easy to see hubris, ignorance, and greed clouding the White House, but the U.K. under Blair definitely should have known better. This will have to rank as Britain’s greatest error in the Middle East since the Suez Crisis of 1956. That they went ahead on deliberately “sexed up” intelligence is even more disgraceful.
And let’s not forget the Bush-Cheney propaganda re: the looming threat of mushroom clouds when Iran is ready to take us on. Even though there is proof that Iran does need a new energy source before it runs out of oil for export within a few years. It is entitled to develop atomic energy for that purpose and will be monitored by the UN. (There is still a lot of oil under the sand, however, which would be why we “must” take it for ourselves.)
And the great threat of “socialism” taking over Latin America that justifies a, so far, 7-1/2 year disinformation campaign against Hugo Chavez (who fears, perhaps rightly, assassination by the US) and a newer campaign against these other “dangerous” leaders: President Morales of Bolivia, who seeks to increase power for Bolivia’s indigenous peoples while decreasing that of monied and corporate interests; and President Correa of Guatemala who, like Chavez, wants no US military bases in his country. He will not renew an airbase lease that expires in 2009, but will instead use the base for cargo shipments. This makes him and Chavez “uncooperative in the War on Terror.”
So what will we do? Invade Latin America top to bottom to rid it of all the leaders who want to put their own people’s welfare before that of our corporations or our military? IT ALL MAKES JANUARY 2009 SEEM SO FAR AWAY.
NateW: following the pre-emptive attacks on Iraq by the US and UK in 2003, Tony Blair was re-elected in 2005 by only 25% of the electorate. We operate a “first past the post” system here in the UK, and it is in my opinion, not fit for use in a democracy. The Labour party’s power in government has been greatly exaggerated using this system. I quite agree with you regarding the Suez analogy, another disgraceful and embarrassing use of our “power”. I am to this day, bewildered that a Labour leader could affiliate himself and his party (who disgust me with their complicity), with the most right wing US administration in history.
By doing so, they seemed to give the whole venture some kind of credibility and legality.
I should also say, that I regard the death of Dr David Kelly, as a turning point in the reporting by the BBC. Following the leaked dossier episode, the BBC lost it’s leader Greg Dyke, a man who was known for his integrity and straight talking.
Since then, we are fed hardly any foreign news, particularly on Iraq/Afghanistan (except when a British soldier is killed), and now survive on a diet of domestic events, dominated by “celebrity” rubbish.
In my opinion, both Alastair Campbell and Tony Blair were well aware of the contents of the dossier which led to war, and simply wanted to “clear the way” of obstructions, by “over egging” or “sexing it up”.
The result of this, is that due to modern technology and communications, every country in the World is aware that we lied in order to start a war. Where on earth do we go from here to make amends?
To add to the list, napalm, used by the US in France and Greece before they used it in Vietnam, and white phosphorus, banned for use on civilians, but used in Central America in the 80s and in Fallujah in 2004.
Saddam was the only one to the use chemical weapons against civilians?
Surely you jest. The British RAF used poison gas against the Red Russians in 1917 or so. And good old Winston Churchill used them against the Kurds in 1919. There must be others.
Depleted Uranium anyone? Sure, it’s not chemical, but it’s affects are just as inhumane.
Terrified; ” And ‘Agent Blue’, an arsenical herbicide that starves plants of moisture, killing them by drying them out”, used on the rice crop in South Vietnam as early as 1962.
There were other chemical weapons as well.
Napalm was a chemical weapon and the new version we used in Iraq at the beginning of the war still is.
locust February 18th, 2008 11:59 am
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians:”
The first people to use chemical weapons on Iraqis were the British in the 1920s.
Damn, you beat me. But I can name the commander of that operation, it’s where ‘butcher’ Harris got his name long before the ‘area’ bombing campaigns against Nazi Germany in the 40s.
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians: so far,” the US report stated.
Aside from Agent Orange, a known carcinogen at the time it was dropped on US ally South Vietnam, the U.S. has used NAPALM against civilian targets (in Japan–Tokyo was firebombed with NAPALM killing over 100,000 civilians in one night, Vietnam), as pointed out in the comments above. The UK report is incorrect–the US beat Saddam by several decades and by civilian destruction of several orders of magnitude.
However, the US is the ONLY country thus far to have used WMD of another type against civilians: atomic bombs against the citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These were used just days before Japan was already prepared to surrender, as was known to Washington. Washington had to show off its newly developed deadly secret weapon to the Soviets and the world to cement its place as the top dog. Timing was important as the nuclear weapons had to be demonstrated on a large actual population before Japan surrendered.
And lest we forget.
Saddam had destroyed ALL of his WMDs, prior to 2001, and our intelligence agencies were fully aware of that fact, as were the British intelligence agencies. So was President Bush and Tony Blair aware of that truth. They also knew that Saddam had never purchased ANY uranium from Africa, as our president publically informed us he had, frightening the public with pictures of mushroom clouds.
Nevertheless, when the Director of the CIA, George Tenent, briefed Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in September of 2001 of those truths, Bush ordered Tenent to alter the critically important NIE report and state otherwise. Tenent altered that most important report and we went to war.
It should also be noted, that the poisonous gas Saddam did use against Iran’s troops and his own Kurds, was supplied to him by the United States. And as another stated here, when it comes to WMDs, DU ammunitiion and bombs, is the ultimate WMD and we have spread thousands of tons of that poison all over the Mid-East and it will be there killing any who may inhale the poisonous, wind blown dust for billions of years.
Everything is chemical–EVERYTHING. So it follows that ALL weapons are chemical, with DU clearly a poison.
This is a classic piece of propaganda: It has a few kernals of truth, but is framed in a manner to justify the crime.
Thx AndyUK, good points all around.
Bernice and others, please do not get too excited over January 2009. Each of these candidates have already been “prepared” by their masters to get in tow. The MSM techniques will continue to improve and your enthusiasm for “change” will be used against you. Only through Deconstruction and quiet intellectual revolution can the “Sith lord” be exposed.
Josh:
You can’t count the Tokyo fire bombing because the chemicals had already turned into flames, let’s keep our logic on firm ground please.
I think the destruction and plunder of Iraq was planned well before G.W. was anointed by his daddy’s Supreme Court.
glenn godman and Kem Patrick, you beat me to it. The really sad part is that it didn’t take much effort (on my part) to discern the truth before the invasion. Where was the rest of the country? Why, watching “reality TV” of course.
This is a lengthy link, but very important for ANY who wish to see just how deadly important the DU issue is. __ I printed it, then read and studied it, while sitting in front of my turned off TV set. Yes, there are chemicals and there are very deadly chemicals. DU is actually a heavy metal, which is relatively harmles to life, until it is burned, as it is when used in weapons of war. It is a weapon which is far worse than any chemical, it just takes much longer to eventually kill life than nerve gas, etc will. __ It’s sneakier, very difficult to detect it’s presence and there is no mushroom cloud.
http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/background.htm
Why did Tony back Bush in lying to go to war,just look at the size of his current salary. Arly
Ken Nuti February 18th, 2008 3:53 pm
“The MSM techniques will continue to improve and your enthusiasm for “change” will be used against you.”
Ken, didn’t you get the memo? The MainStream Media (MSM) has been renamed to the Corporate Media (CM) and then further refined as Big Media (BM), whose initials more aptly reflect their output.
“Only through Deconstruction and quiet intellectual revolution can the “Sith lord” be exposed.”
That’s what I’m hoping for.
Arly: I was saying this to people years ago, they didn’t believe me. Anyone on this earth can be tempted by wealth and power. Tony Blair is the biggest fraud in the World today. Even now, there are people saying that he is a devout man, and he followed the moral path as he saw it. This is all B—s–t, he is the biggest criminal of the bunch.
He is raking in the casino chips at the moment - guest appearances in the US, special envoy to the Middle East (this really makes me want to heave), advisor/consultant to one of the biggest merchant banks in the World, possible president of Europe - where will it all end?
I really wish that it could end in the Hague, with a short drop and a quick stop, because that is what mass murderers and accomplices deserve.
By the way, as special envoy to the Middle East, shouldn’t he at least include Damascus and Tehran on his visiting list? I rather feel, that in keeping with a long line of current Western “chickenhawk” politicians, he doesn’t possess the necessary male attributes.
A correction: Correa is the leader of Ecuador, not Guatemala, but it’s still very good to see so many southern nations getting together and focusing on the real rogue state.
Even though I am a citizen of said state.
catherine
In an authoritarian, rogue state, one is more of a subject than a citizen.
In fact, within the U.S., the wealthy are not citizens. The rapidly diminishing middle-classes are losing their citizenship rights.
The working class is slowly sinking closer and closer into the poverty class as their previously worked jobs are being shipped to low-wage, coercive places of employment.
Indeed, their unions (which acted as many industrial workers’ method of influencing the workplace, local and national power)have mostly evaporated.
And, last, the rapidly expanding poverty class has been de-mobilized so long ago, that they don’t even make up a dangerous class; instead, they are ghettoized and discarded.
When we were citizens and possessed a politically active poverty class, the masters had to respond as fellow citizens. In other words, they had to resort to the carrot in order to get what they wanted from us.
Because today’s wealthy class is a rogue class, they attempt to control the lower orders using the stick: prisons, surveillence, and attacking and rolling back the economic, environmental and legal protections that we constructed (when we were citizens) in order to counter the powerful corporations that are the foundations of their wealth.
balakirev,
Right on target! You stated the current state of affairs, perfectly, in my opinion. And the people still don’t get it. How sad.
whatfools February 18th, 2008 4:00 pm
>>I think the destruction and plunder of Iraq was planned well before G.W. was anointed by his daddy’s Supreme Court.<<
Your thinking is correct. That scheme was drawn up in 1991 mainly by the PNAC. But Clinton wouldn’t play the game so they waited for the next election. But clinton won again. They failed to get rid of him with the White Water & Paula Joan scanders so they set him up and impeached him (Monica Lewinsky). But he survived that too. Then in 2000 Gore won the Presidency and they couldn’t have that; so they stole the election and put their man in the White House, exactly what they needed….a drug snorting, draft dodging bully. And the rest is history.
Nate W and AndyUK -
At the time of the Suez crisis in 1956, the United States had a Republican President named Dwight Eisenhower. When the Brits, the French, and the Israelis all sought the White House’s blessing of their fait accompli, overthrowing Nasser and reestablishing western control over Egypt and the canal, Ike told them all to go take a hike. No way he would approve, no matter how big a piece of the action.
Eisenhower knew that colonialism was dead in the post World War II world, and stationing American troops on the ground in the Middle East for any substantial period of time was not in the United States’ national interest. That’s what that moldy old language from the Founding Fathers about avoiding “foreign entanglements” is largely about.
Ike’s wise refusal to go along with Israel and the former European colonial powers caused the whole “crisis” over the Suez canal to defuse itself fairly quickly, with Nasser restored to power. For the next 50 years, it was the one major thing Arabs and Muslims could point to as historical proof that to some extent at least Uncle Sam could be an honest outside broker in Middle East disputes, evidence that American nationalism was not inherently marching in coextensive lockstep with Zionism.
In 2002 of course there was a totally different type of Republican President occupying the White House. His neo-con think tank advisors knew they were far, far wiser than Dwight Eisenhower, and the parade of other US Presidents following Ike, each of whom had the good common sense to keep US ground combat forces from inevitably being drawn into the Holy Land’s endless, bloody disputes by not stationing large numbers of them there.
At first, (disclosure - I’m an American who has studied and lived a couple of years in England), I was extremely thankful for Tony Blair’s presence and support in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. Little George clearly was an unknown quantity at first, a real lose cannon in dire need of adult supervision, who just might fly off the handle and nuke himself some Afghans for no better reason than to prove he had been blessed with big cajones by an omniscient, omnipresent God.
Unfortunately, Tony Blair morphed into an enabler rather than being a positive, restraining influence upon the Neanderthal faction within George Bush’s inner circle. The Downing Street memos pretty much say it all, along with this, the latest UK declassification.
Bloody minded fools, one and all.
Bill from Saginaw
RIP Casey Sheehan and hundreds of thousands of others.
What can we do to stop this now and from ever happening again?
;(
Cindy
Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians: so far,” the US report stated.
I think he meant to say on civilians in their own country.
Jamestown was gradually poisoned by a Spanish-paid agent who cooked for the English with a really nice rat poison sauce. Spain was a bit slow on the uptake however, and England replenished the population so as to make Jamestown what it is today: Disneyland.
also, may we count the smallpox blankets given to the sioux and cheyenne and nez perce?
Now we all know about american perfidy, let’s go tell everyone who doesn’t. this is a complex case of long-term greed. just think, what if Iraqis and your average Venezuelan had had the stolen proceeds from all that petrol we stole!
who would rule the world?
Cindysheehan: The war, unfortunately as seen by the relations of serving soldiers in the UK, goes something like this.
The general populace is thought of as “unpatriotic”, if we do not support our troops under all circumstances. This includes torture allegations or similar war crimes, where investigations are thought to “harm” the cause.
The same relatives (very often from “military” families, and very often from the poorer areas of society), will then, following a casualty, turn from supporting the war, to being totally against it. A minority will still unfortunately, feel proud that their son/daughter, has died “defending their country”.
There is no real anguish over the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi/Afghani civilians, but plenty of noise, when a coalition troop gets killed, because of deficiencies in training or equipment.
We still have a hardcore of people who were against the war, and who have been vindicated in their beliefs, but not publicly.
Cindy, I hope that we can stop this, but politics and how the American and British people vote, will determine the future. There is nothing to say that there will not be a major confrontation between the US/Israel and Iran, in the non too distant future, but we need to lessen the chances, by electing people who want to talk, rather than use phrases like “all options are on the table”. We cannot have the US in particular, treating other nations like naughty children, who must be disciplined if they don’t obey their parents.
The most important point, is that we cannot have the US ambassador to the UK, saying at the weekend, that it is up to the US as the World’s leading power, to ensure peace and democracy in the World, and then to refer to Iran as the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the World. We need statesmen in the World, not people who think that it is macho and clever, to use aggressive rhetoric when describing another country.
Martin Luther King, Jr said it quite well in his speech against the Viet Nam war:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b80Bsw0UG-U
CORRECTION TO A PREVIOUS COMMENT:
Correa is the duly-elected ruler of Ecuador, not Guatemala
The so called “dodgy dossier” was a hastily amended redraft of a State Department classified document on Iraq written by their expert from Iraq War one (disingenuously called a PhD Student thesis) - I would imagine brought by Colon Powell to try and get some UK cover for his UN pitch - The authors name wasn’t John Williams - this smacks of further cover up frankly. Who exactly is this John Williams???
Cindy,
I will get criticized for saying this but the best chance we have now to stop this from happening again is to elect Obama.
Now sit back and watch the attack from all kinds of people who will want to support someone who doesn’t have a chance or advocate a revolution but as soon as you ask what kind of revolution, the devil is in the details.
You know we need the change now. The far left and the far right want total meltdown of society so they can come in and take over…… go to heaven or once again impose the dictatorship of their favorite class (the workers) which they are not even a part of..
We can chose between what is possible or wait for the same old schemes that never work or never happen.
We need Obama…. we need to take a chance for peace… we can always go back to War.
Being British i agree with most of what AndyUK says, Blair never had nor most governments before him the support of the majority. I was called up for the Suez debacle on August bank holiday Monday and landed on the beach at Port Said. A US navy ship was constantly harassing our operation, so much for IKE’S no involvement. The USA wanted to see the final demise of British and French colonialism in order to replace it with their own. Don’t forget too that Israel at that time was more socialist and the extremists in Washington couldn’t bear that, fancy people having rights and just doing what they like, it doesn’t bear thinking about to a Republican.
Blair was never a socialist, or any other ‘ist except a Blairist. He doesn’t give a shit for anything or anybody, not even his family, but himself. The Rightwingers love people like Blair because they always have a price, they can be easily bought.
Dr. Kelly was murdered, by whom I don’t know but he was definitely murdered. There are 6 doctors of medicine who have been pressing to have a properly conducted investigation into Kelly’s murder but the corrupt British government have refused.
it is worth remembering - all explosives work by release of stored chemical energy, and hence are chemical weapons.also that the most destructive chemical weapon is the 10ton fuel air explosive - used multiple times in afghanistan - which depletes oxygen over a diameter of 1 mile and destroys all- within that diameter -by asphyxiation- no different to chlorine.a totally nonselective weapon. napalm, depleted U and white phosphorus are the other obvious examples noted above.
At least Saddam’s rape squads( if they ever existed ) had some political purpose. What’s the purpose of U.S. soldiers raping their fellow comrades-in-arms( coalition of the unwilling, if you will )? No purpose but that they are cultivated in a psychotic, misogynistic society that gave rise to the likes of Blackwater, Inc.
Of course Saddam’s regime was monstrous. Like all violent political entities it’d stop at nothing to maintain/expand its power base, just as it’s would-be conquerors.
The Jane’s Intelligence Digest URL has changed to:
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr030416_1_n.shtml
If the US was concerned about Saddam’s use of chemical weapons, why did Western countries aid him with weapons, chemicals, etc? Why do we see Rumsfeld shaking hands (1983) with Saddam just a few years before the attack? Halabja was estimated to have killed several hundred to 5,000 people.
In Rwanda (under Clinton’s watch, 1994), perhaps as many as 500,000-1,000,000 were killed, in a fairly short time. If we are to be concerned about human life, why doesn’t magnitude matter? Supporting dictators? Our role as steward for the old british empire is not compatible with democracy, the modern global economy is not compatible with a republic.
Now that we’ve got neither, what next?
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians”
A couple of years ago a Dutch man called Frans van Anraat was convicted for supplying Saddam Hussain with the ingredients for the chemical weapons that were used by Saddam’s regime. Now where did Mr. van Anraat get those chemicals? I’m wondering…..
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_van_Anraat
And especially the following BBC item: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4358741.stm
Well, of course the folks who work at the BBC are a bunch of Islamist Commies, so there is no point to believing any of what they write.
We all seem to share the same knowledge/opinion concerning Bush/Blair and Iraq but few seem willing to talk about WHY they both deceived. At least most Brits opposed the war from the start, probably because the British are better informed and far less insular than most Americans. Or maybe they are simply more skeptical. But Blair supported Bush despite lacking popular support at home. Why?
A possible explanation lies in the political and financial influence of Right wing Jews in both countries. As for Blair, I only have to mention Lord Levy, his chief fund-raiser and Middle East advisor. You can’t get more obvious than that.
In the US the Jewish vote and financial support is critical for any candidate. Hence Gore/Lieberman in 2000. Unfortunately for Democrats many (not all) liberal Jewish Democrats defected to the Republican Party, beginning in 1980 when Carter lost to Reagan. Hard-line (wrt the West Bank) Jews rejected the Camp David accords, and later the Oslo Accords. They formed an alliance with Christian Evangelicals to support Republican candidates who vowed unequivocal support for Israel’s “divine right” to the West Bank.
Having said that, I must also add that Jews themselves are split on the issue of “land for peace”, but the current Republican party in the US and Likud party in Israel (Netanyahu, Sharon and Ohlmert) are joined at the hip on this issue. And for every Lieberman there are, thank God, the Feingolds, Levins, and Schumers.
I fervently hope that the Jews that “got into bed” with the Republican party now see the error of their ways.
SetYouFree: I think the reasons behind Blair’s willingness to back Bush, despite the lack of public backing, has even more to do with the power which we give our leaders. We live in a “democracy”, but the unions have had their teeth pulled, and the general populace suffers from the great Western disease of apathy. We no longer take a real stand against the whittling away of our civil liberties, and we rarely stand up for each other, or speak our mind in front of our peers.
Pistonbroke has already stated that Blair is not a socialist, but I would say that he is a committed Thatcherite/elitist. There were obviously promises made before the war, Blair will never need to work again, nor will his family. The corrupt Catholic church (which I used to be a member of), have welcomed him with open arms, war criminals are obviously going to boost congregations.
I and many others are sickened by the stance of the Labour party in the UK, and have left the party in their droves.
AndyUK: Couldn’t agree more. But I think that we shouldn’t feel sanguine about our “leaders” by attaching labels to them. It is more productive to be aware of the forces at work in our society and how our “fearless leaders” (ha) react to them.
At least the British (I am Anglo/American BTW) have a viable third party. Are you a Liberal Democrat (OOOPS… labels again)?
Yes, I changed to being Lib Dem after the the Iraq war, because I recognised that there were politicians, still able to face the ridicule of the press, and of the two major parties, and not waver.
I am disgusted with the popular press, because it attacks the Lib Dems at a moments notice for quite puerile reasons, which are overlooked by many.
At least they had the balls to stick to their guns for what they believed was right.
You are quite right about “the forces at work in our society”, because we can only imagine the pressures which modern politicians are under, from lobby groups, whips, the cabinet, leadership, sponsors etc.
At the end of the day, they no longer represent the people who elected them.
“Saddam remains the only man to have used chemical weapons to wage war on civilians”
Yes, with the knowledge of the U.S.A. at the time. Back in the 80’s, right? back when Rumsfeld was photographed shaking Hussein’s hand? And the U.S.A. did nothing about it!Because Hussein was our “friend” back then.
Apparently when it came time to make an excuse to wage another war, all of a sudden “we” cared!
What I don’t understand is, how can people be so evil? How can they start a war based on lies,knowing the suffering they will cause? I guess they are just psychopaths.
Anyone want to bet the only thing that will come out of this latest release will be more cynicism? It certainly added to mine along with a few others above.
I applaud sites like CD, but the truth of the matter is, democracy is dead people! March and protest all you want, but if there is anything this adminsitration has proven during its tenure is that your voice doesn’t mean sh*%! CD and a few other sites on the net will post this news in the US, maybe Olbermann will briefly touch it, but the vast majority of Americans will continue to go on being Paris Hilton - clueless sheep.
Minus another bloody revolution, this latest release only proves there is no way in hell things will ever change for the better in this country.
AndyUK: Precisely. Both here and the UK the governments no longer represent the peoples’ best interests, but minority interests. Those being the wealthy, corporate, well-connected, and the most pernicioius, religious (in the US). At least half of the population are disillusioned, demoralized, ignorant or apathetic. So, in a sense, they only have themselves to blame (a country gets the government it deserves).
Having said all that, the UK is much better served by its leaders than in the US, probably because of the legacy from post-war Labour governments. Despite Thatcher’s best efforts to remake the UK in the image of the ultimate consumer society, there are still places in the UK that are a joy to live in. My favorite is Fowey in Cornwall, and my wife and I plan to move there.
Do you think the Lib Dems can win an election?
Did not the American Colonists use biological (organic chemical) weapons to decimate the Native Americans? Millions died long, painful, agonizing deaths as a result. If these colonists did indeed own the land they were living on, as they claimed, then Saddam was not the first to use chemical weapons in his own country.
As I scan history, I see no greater example of genocide being conducted using chemical (biological) weapons until the arrival of these invading Euro-Americans.
The chemical weapons Saddam used were sold to him by G.H.W.
Bush, in the late eighties. However, this is a lead to the smoking gun, which is when Bush/Cheney “fixed” intelligence to get us into the war against Iraq and the world. That fact of “fixing” not cherrypicking is what they should be using to indict for war crimes.
SetYouFree Feb20th 9.25 am: The only way in which the Liberal Democrats could gain power, would be a complete overhaul of the electoral system. Tony Blair promised to look at this when in power, but conveniently forgot about it. The first past the post system does not allow for a representative view of the electorate, so we need proportional representation. At the moment we have 22% of the people who voted Lib Dem in a disenfranchised state. I suspect that a lot of these people were academics, or people with serious views on politics, who had the capacity for looking beyond image, soundbite and populism.
We have such a problem with image and peer pressure in the UK, that most people would be afraid to say they voted Lib Dem, in case they were ridiculed. People are so concerned with how other people see them, that they very often say or do what is expected (or what they perceive) of them, rather than speaking their mind, and letting their conscience rule.
By the way, Fowey in Cornwall is a very pleasant place, and I think the Lib Dems do quite well down there.