Blair fights fresh allegations over Iraq
By FT Reporters
Published: May 1 2005 14:07 | Last updated: May 1 2005 14:07

Blair/Election graphic Tony Blair on Sunday found himself fending off a
fresh assault on his decision to go to war in Iraq following an
apparent leaked memo which suggests the prime minister was seeking
means of justifying military action eight months prior to the conflict.

In the July 2002 memo by former Downing Street foreign policy aide
Matthew Rycroft published in the Sunday Times, Jack Straw, foreign
secretary is quoted as saying that US president George Bush had made up
his mind to go to war, though the timing had not yet been decided.
However, Mr Straw states the case for war is "thin" as Saddam was
not threatening his neighbours and his WMD threat was less than that of
Libya, North Korea or Iran.

"We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in
the UN weapons inspectors," the foreign secretary is quoted as
saying. "This would help with the legal justification for the use of
force."

The memo detailed a meeting chairmed by the prime minister and attended
by Mr Straw, defence secretary Geoff Hoon and Lord Goldsmith, the
attorney general.

But on the BBC's Breakfast with Frost Mr Blair denied any decision had
been taken to attack Iraq.

"You have got to discuss everything as you go along, but the point is
that after that meeting we decided to go back to the UN and give him a
last chance," the prime minister told the programme.

"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam that would have
been the end of it, despite the fact it was the most appalling
regime."

Mr Blair also claimed that the reason the Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats were focusing on Iraq was that they had "nothing serious to
say" about the issues facing Britain.

On 1 May 2005 07:17:37 -0700, "none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Blair fights fresh allegations over Iraq
>By FT Reporters
>Published: May 1 2005 14:07 | Last updated: May 1 2005 14:07
>
>Blair/Election graphic Tony Blair on Sunday found himself fending off a
>fresh assault on his decision to go to war in

Personally I'd tell them to piss off, going to war was right and we
should have an official lotto over what terrorist we are going after
next.

"none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1114957057.575484.151860@o13g2000cwo.googlegr oups.com...
> Blair fights fresh allegations over Iraq
> By FT Reporters
> Published: May 1 2005 14:07 | Last updated: May 1 2005 14:07
>
> Blair/Election graphic Tony Blair on Sunday found himself fending off a
> fresh assault on his decision to go to war in Iraq following an
> apparent leaked memo which suggests the prime minister was seeking
> means of justifying military action eight months prior to the conflict.
>
> In the July 2002 memo by former Downing Street foreign policy aide
> Matthew Rycroft published in the Sunday Times, Jack Straw, foreign
> secretary is quoted as saying that US president George Bush had made up
> his mind to go to war, though the timing had not yet been decided.

Speaking as someone who flew back into the UK from Jamaica in February 2003
to find tanks bordering the runway at Heathrow to counter a "terrorist
threat" that the PM and Foreign Secretary have both repeatedly refused to
disclose any details about (i.e it was bogus and window dressing to promote
the case for invading Iraq), I can believe every word of the memo.

"Alan" <43243@324234.com> wrote in message
news:rZ6de.2631$%K6.1994@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> On 1 May 2005 07:17:37 -0700, "none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Blair fights fresh allegations over Iraq
>>By FT Reporters
>>Published: May 1 2005 14:07 | Last updated: May 1 2005 14:07
>>
>>Blair/Election graphic Tony Blair on Sunday found himself fending off a
>>fresh assault on his decision to go to war in
>
> Personally I'd tell them to piss off, going to war was right and we
> should have an official lotto over what terrorist we are going after
> next.

The real question is why were the british people, brainwashed into
the claim of WMD in 45mins

It has become apprent that war with Iraq was on the cards in 2001
if not before, and Tony was allready signed up with the USA
and the whole WMD was a reason that he could use to try and
sell the idea to the UN, which of course failed as the rest of the UN
felt it was a illegal attack

There is real reason to belive the war is really about the OIL trade in the
world, and of course there is the added benefit of a new Iraq, but this
is at the cost of thousands of lives, which sadly at the look of it will
carry on for many years with the car bomb attacks etc, I feel that
considering
this was was planned for years, why so little planing for the days after
Sadam

I find it upsetting that such a underhanded leader has a chance to get a 3rd
term, and if so what does this say about the moral values of the british
people.

oplegg@yahoo.co.uk declared for all the world to hear...
<snip>

Will you please fuck off. (from uk.t.m anyway)

--
Regards
Jon

On Sun, 1 May 2005 18:04:26 +0100, "Oliver Gunnell"
<Oliver.Gunnell@dsl.pipex.spamcom> wrote:

>The real question is why were the british people, brainwashed into
>the claim of WMD in 45mins

Please take this off-topic discussion somewhere else.

FWIW, I don't know a single person who believed that there were WMDs
in 45 minutes. Millions of people demonstrated against the invasion,
and many many more felt the same, but didn't demonstrate.

The trouble is that the electoral system is stacked against the
libdems so they have no chance of forming a government, and the
conservatives were/are even more gungo-ho about attacking Iraq than
Blair was/is. So what electoral alternative to people have? None!

--
Visit the Hairydog Guide to Mobile Phones
http://www.hairydog.co.uk/cell1.html - maintainers of
http://www.mobileshop.org - the on-line mobile phone guide
sponsored by http://www.mobileshop.com - the online store

On 1 May 2005 07:17:37 -0700, "none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

spam.

abuse reported.

On Sun, 1 May 2005 18:04:26 +0100, "Oliver Gunnell"
<Oliver.Gunnell@dsl.pipex.spamcom> wrote:

>
>"Alan" <43243@324234.com> wrote in message
>news:rZ6de.2631$%K6.1994@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>> On 1 May 2005 07:17:37 -0700, "none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Blair fights fresh allegations over Iraq
>>>By FT Reporters
>>>Published: May 1 2005 14:07 | Last updated: May 1 2005 14:07
>>>
>>>Blair/Election graphic Tony Blair on Sunday found himself fending off a
>>>fresh assault on his decision to go to war in
>>
>> Personally I'd tell them to piss off, going to war was right and we
>> should have an official lotto over what terrorist we are going after
>> next.
>
>The real question is why were the british people, brainwashed into
>the claim of WMD in 45mins

It doesnt matter. We vote them in to do our thinking for us and trust
they do their duty, he did the right thing end of story.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 18:37:29 +0100, mobileshoporg@despammed.com wrote:

>On Sun, 1 May 2005 18:04:26 +0100, "Oliver Gunnell"
><Oliver.Gunnell@dsl.pipex.spamcom> wrote:
>
>>The real question is why were the british people, brainwashed into
>>the claim of WMD in 45mins
>
>Please take this off-topic discussion somewhere else.
>
>FWIW, I don't know a single person who believed that there were WMDs
>in 45 minutes. Millions of people demonstrated against the invasion,
>and many many more felt the same, but didn't demonstrate.
>
>The trouble is that the electoral system is stacked against the
>libdems

Just as well. Bunch of pansies.

On Sun, 01 May 2005 17:48:01 GMT, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On 1 May 2005 07:17:37 -0700, "none" <oplegg@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>spam.
>
>abuse reported.

Sissy