|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 24, 2009 17:54:06 GMT
It'll probably be a whitewash, but if anyone's interested a lot of it is being put online here: Iraq Inquiry Online |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 25, 2009 9:35:17 GMT
Already it's not a white wash, as they've presented evidence that a year before the war started a reigime change had been tabled and then discarded (because of the pressure that the US was putting on us at the time)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 12:16:57 GMT
The evidence is far less important than the conclusions reached. A ton of files got leaked to the Telegraph which prove beyond question the level of govt incompetence and mendacity, but will the inquiry have the integrity to put the blame where it belongs? Only time will tell... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 13:11:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Dark Phoenix Rising on Nov 25, 2009 13:26:22 GMT
Actually, no that's not absolute dynamite. It's another small thing that through the chinese whispers style political pass the parcel turned into a big thing. (i.e. expert says x minister hears x but doesn't understand what x is, and infers it to be y)
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 13:52:32 GMT
The reason given in Britain for the invasion was to destroy Saddam's WMD. Yet according to the new evidence, we knew he'd already destroyed it. In other words, the article seems to be saying that Blair took us to war on the strength of a lie that was known to be a lie at the time. I'd call that dynamite.
Until now we have thought that was the case, but there's been no outright evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 16:07:12 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Nov 25, 2009 17:59:38 GMT
Hmm - I wonder - would a full disclosure and verification of the allegations not be embarrassing to the US Administration too in view of 'intelligence shared' (no pun intended  ) |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Nov 25, 2009 18:28:14 GMT
Yes, Glance. But a lot of it is already out, including the fact that the US repeatedly waterboarded one of the 9/11 suspects until they forced him to say Saddam was involved, despite the fact that he wasn't. As Dick Cheney has admitted since, there was no link between Saddam and 9/11 at all. Time has already published huge articles decrying the total lack of preparation that went into dealing with peacetime operations in Iraq ('Nation building' if you prefer), so that's known, too. So we know that Iraq was invaded based on evidence obtained through torture and with no idea what to do what once the coalition had the place. I'm not sure it's possible that worse could emerge than that. After all, what worse could there be? |
|
|
|
Post by Lews on Dec 7, 2009 1:59:27 GMT
Well, I think most people (who aren't conservative idiots) already have taken it for granted that at best we were mislead and at worse we were lied to about Iraq prior to invasion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jan 19, 2010 18:43:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Glance A'Lot on Jan 20, 2010 9:46:19 GMT
“We had never successfully identified someone who might replace Saddam Hussein. There was real concern about what Iraq might look like in the aftermath of his regime being removed.”
Somehow the same happened during the first Gulf War...
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jan 20, 2010 15:18:47 GMT
Which is why they never went for Saddam back then, IIRC. Bush Snr realised that moving into Iraq would be a catastrophic mistake and would tie the US down for years and perhaps decades to come. He showed much wisdom in that.
|
|
|
|
Post by ss on Jan 21, 2010 0:39:54 GMT
Which is why they never went for Saddam back then, IIRC. Bush Snr realised that moving into Iraq would be a catastrophic mistake and would tie the US down for years and perhaps decades to come. He showed much wisdom in that. Too True, but also the UN resolution did not allow for anything more than removing Iraq from Kuwait...and that is why we went in, not to oust Saddam...even if they hoped that the Iraquis would do it on their own... IMO...(for what that is worth.. ;D)..we should have completely anniliated the Republican Guard then, when we had the chance on the roads...they would not have lived to fight another day... |
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jan 21, 2010 0:53:14 GMT
A vastly weakened Iraq would have left Iran with a free hand in the region though, ss, which was not to our advantage either. The two kept each other firmly in check and as long as they were concentrating on each other, they had little time for other foes. Oops, eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Elliot Kane on Jan 28, 2010 17:18:30 GMT
|
|
)
.com
