Even without proof
But there wasn't any proof. And there still isn't.
Funny that, I thought you were an elected politician with a responsibility to listen to (a) your electorate and (b) your colleagues. Got that wrong, though. It was your decision only, Mr President. Still, at least you 'sympathise' with the idea of democracy.
Any Labour politicians still perplexed by why liberal people abandoned your party might want to start with this article here.
*update*
The BBC have changed the headline and the first paragraph slightly:
Mm, but there was no evidence, or proof. If Blair's pathetic claim that 'he used poison gas on his own people [two decades before, when, ironically enough, the United States was on his side and blamed the Iranians instead, funny old world, isn't it?]' is the 'evidence' then that says even more about him.
Related posts:
Buy my book, it’s great
Switch site
Donate
Recent Posts
- Cheerio, cheerio, cheerio…
- Children died
- The letters you never get around to sending
- Applying again
- I just sent Robin round – 2
Most Commented On
Recent Comments
- Iain on Applying again
- Roger on The letters you never get around to sending
- Dave Hodgkinson on The letters you never get around to sending
- droid on The letters you never get around to sending
- Rogue_Leader on The letters you never get around to sending
About Me
Hello. I'm a Bristol-based writer and soon-to-be-redundant journalist. You can read more about me and the Enemies site here, or follow me on Twitter. Email me if you like - antonvowl at live dot co dot uk
If you're struggling to read the site please use the drop down box below to increase the text size.
December 12th, 2009 - 10:52
Thanks for an excellent post.
With regard to "Mm, but there was no evidence, or proof" though, I do have to disagree.
There was some evidence. It wasn't good evidence. There just wasn't enough of it to constitute proof.
December 12th, 2009 - 12:55
The problem of 'evidence' lies in the fallacious assumption implicit in the procedures of Parliament that politicized institutions like MI6 and the CIA can be expected to provide non-bias, reliable evidence in the face of a clear Government agenda.
December 12th, 2009 - 14:28
If Blair's pathetic claim that 'he used poison gas on his own people…
Let us refer to Mark Thomas in his column for the New Statesman in December 2002…
The first early day motion (these are political statements which MPs can sign up to and support) condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons was issued on 24 March 1988. Did Straw support it? No. Neither did he support the first early day motion to mention Halabja by name, issued four days later on 28 March 1988. Nor did he put his name to the condemnations on the first, sixth and tenth anniversaries of the attack in March 1989, 1994 or 1998. Strangely, neither did Blair, Prescott, Blunkett, Cook or Hoon add their names to any of these condemnations of Iraq's most notorious attack. Maybe they just all forgot their pens on those days.
In short, Blair didn't give a shit about poison gas.
December 12th, 2009 - 18:20
Didn't Galloway sign those EDMs?
[The most frightening thing about that Mark Thomas article was the piece where, in 2001, Straw was happy to send people back to Iraq to face a 'fair trial'. If the people of Britain have no means to punish a politician who asserts such untruths and bases actions upon these lies, surely there would be grounds to have Jack Straw sectioned? If he denies that the letter rejecting asylum was a lie, then surely he is a man who suffers from delusions that endanger the lives of others?]
December 14th, 2009 - 15:43
"In the end I had to take the decision…"
… to deliberately mislead parliament who made the actual final decision, a decision they would not have made had they known that the WMD claims were not remotely true.
The Prime Minister doesn't make the decision about which wars we fight, parliament does.
December 15th, 2009 - 07:12
Pretty shocking stuff (and a little bit weaselly of the BBC to change that strapline to "evidence" rather than "proof" – "evidence" could be anything; "proof" is harder to come by.)
On the day this news came out though, it did feature in BBC World News' headlines (I'm in Hong Kong). Second, behind the much more important news that some golfer had decided to take a break from golf.