Topic: Bliar his cronies, the media and their lies, lies and more lies.

[Parky]

Old Trafford bomb plot LIES. No one charged in the end, yet the Home Office and the Bliar cabal with the help of the our new Orwellian police force misled the public for weeks.

"The reporting of this incident was inflammatory and misleading. It caused needless alarm among millions of TV viewers and newspaper readers. It stirred up anti-Islamic prejudice. It ruined the lives of several of the suspects. They lost their homes, their jobs and their friends as a result. They have never received a personal apology, either from the police or from the press."

Ricin plot LIES...8 arrested only one mentally derranged fantasist charged - not with making Ricin (there was NO Ricin to be found anywhere it later transpired). This played the front pages in the week leading upto the invasion. INFACT it turns out you have to inject the stuff for it to work.

"On 7 January, chemical weapons experts at the government research facility at Porton Down carried out more accurate tests into the presence of ricin. These tests established that there was no ricin. Curiously, Porton Down apparently did not pass on this information to the British Government until late March. And apparently the Government never asked for the results of this definitive test. The existence of ricin continued to be proclaimed for over two years."

NO WMD in Iraq.

NO MOBILE chemical weapons labs in Iraq....The stuff they showed at the U.N. were renditions and artists impressions and said labs were never found.

NO CONNECTION WITH AL QUEIDA AND IRAQ (infact they hate each other).

The 45min warning LIES.

NO CONNECTION WITH between 9/11 and SADDAM.

Bliar has been LYING through his teeth for political gain and to bumrush through legislation that looks like it hasn't had 5 min thought go into it.

An illegal war with our soldiers dying for a country that will be split up anyway and profits and oil that will end up in the U.S.

Is Bliar a straight disingenous LIAR and political opportunist (who has damaged our intersts abroad and in the community) or will the things he's DONE to this country end up being of benefit?  (edit).





http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0215-09.htm

[Dave]

Who cares?

[Rob W]

he's a rotten crook

[Mowen]

Regardless of his 'lies', I think he has Britain's best interests at heart. The end question doesn't make any sense, as the answer could easily be both.

[Parky]

LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH:

April 4, 2002: I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass
destruction - on US NBC TV.

May 1: Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, he is in
breach of UN Security Council resolutions and he should come back into
compliance with those - Daily Mirror.

- BUT, Blair had NO proof of this when he said it merely a need to believe
it to justify his desire for war.

September 10: If we do not deal with the threat from this international
outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or
next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And
I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and
did nothing - TUC conference in Blackpool.

- BUT, there was no evidence that this might happen, then or now. Other than
the vague possibility, which could be stated against virtually ANY
militaristic regime.

September 24: The dossier...concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and
active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes.

- BUT, now the dossier seems to be of dubious substance and the evidence
Blair still hopes to find is merely documentary!! Were we conned into war
based on the fact that Iraq could make a paper dart in 45 minutes?

We know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium
from Africa - House of Commons.  The YELLOWCAKE LIE.

- BUT, we now know that this was based on forged documents from Niger, as
the USA has confirmed – did the British Government know this when it
announced this lie? Did the British Government make a statement that this
was a lie AS SOON AS THEY KNEW IT WAS?

November 18: I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge
from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime
change - Radio Monte Carlo.

- BUT, it has been confirmed by the USA that there was NO additional
evidence and that the war was not based on evidence but on a change of
attitude in America post 9/11!!

November 30: Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction, we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because
of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international
community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences - in
an interview.

- BUT, this was just an opinion not borne out by ANY evidence put before the
parliament or the peoples. There was NO evidence that Iraq had ANY
meaningful delivery system even if they might have some residual WMDs.

January 13, 2003: I don't think the British intelligence services would be
advising me this if they weren't doing it honestly and properly - press
conference.


http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/bwmdlies.html

[2sheds]

Regardless of his 'lies', I think he has Britain's best interests at heart. The end question doesn't make any sense, as the answer could easily be both.

Please explain how it is Britain's best interest to have the deployment of out troops in Iraq dependent upon US elections

[Parky]

Regardless of his 'lies', I think he has Britain's best interests at heart. The end question doesn't make any sense, as the answer could easily be both.

Please explain how it is Britain's best interest to have the deployment of out troops in Iraq dependent upon US elections

I have edited the question which I admit was phrased rather poorly. blueyes.gif

[Dinho lad]

LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH:

April 4, 2002: I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass
destruction - on US NBC TV.

May 1: Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, he is in
breach of UN Security Council resolutions and he should come back into
compliance with those - Daily Mirror.

- BUT, Blair had NO proof of this when he said it merely a need to believe
it to justify his desire for war.

September 10: If we do not deal with the threat from this international
outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or
next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And
I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and
did nothing - TUC conference in Blackpool.

- BUT, there was no evidence that this might happen, then or now. Other than
the vague possibility, which could be stated against virtually ANY
militaristic regime.

September 24: The dossier...concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and
active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes.

- BUT, now the dossier seems to be of dubious substance and the evidence
Blair still hopes to find is merely documentary!! Were we conned into war
based on the fact that Iraq could make a paper dart in 45 minutes?

We know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium
from Africa - House of Commons.  The YELLOWCAKE LIE.

- BUT, we now know that this was based on forged documents from Niger, as
the USA has confirmed – did the British Government know this when it
announced this lie? Did the British Government make a statement that this
was a lie AS SOON AS THEY KNEW IT WAS?

November 18: I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge
from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime
change - Radio Monte Carlo.

- BUT, it has been confirmed by the USA that there was NO additional
evidence and that the war was not based on evidence but on a change of
attitude in America post 9/11!!

November 30: Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction, we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because
of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international
community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences - in
an interview.

- BUT, this was just an opinion not borne out by ANY evidence put before the
parliament or the peoples. There was NO evidence that Iraq had ANY
meaningful delivery system even if they might have some residual WMDs.

January 13, 2003: I don't think the British intelligence services would be
advising me this if they weren't doing it honestly and properly - press
conference.


http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/bwmdlies.html

They went in there to save the Iraqi people, tbh.

[Ally]

I still don't think Blair intentionally lied to the country.

[Parky]

LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH:

April 4, 2002: I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass
destruction - on US NBC TV.

May 1: Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, he is in
breach of UN Security Council resolutions and he should come back into
compliance with those - Daily Mirror.

- BUT, Blair had NO proof of this when he said it merely a need to believe
it to justify his desire for war.

September 10: If we do not deal with the threat from this international
outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or
next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And
I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and
did nothing - TUC conference in Blackpool.

- BUT, there was no evidence that this might happen, then or now. Other than
the vague possibility, which could be stated against virtually ANY
militaristic regime.

September 24: The dossier...concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and
active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes.

- BUT, now the dossier seems to be of dubious substance and the evidence
Blair still hopes to find is merely documentary!! Were we conned into war
based on the fact that Iraq could make a paper dart in 45 minutes?

We know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium
from Africa - House of Commons.  The YELLOWCAKE LIE.

- BUT, we now know that this was based on forged documents from Niger, as
the USA has confirmed – did the British Government know this when it
announced this lie? Did the British Government make a statement that this
was a lie AS SOON AS THEY KNEW IT WAS?

November 18: I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge
from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime
change - Radio Monte Carlo.

- BUT, it has been confirmed by the USA that there was NO additional
evidence and that the war was not based on evidence but on a change of
attitude in America post 9/11!!

November 30: Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction, we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because
of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international
community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences - in
an interview.

- BUT, this was just an opinion not borne out by ANY evidence put before the
parliament or the peoples. There was NO evidence that Iraq had ANY
meaningful delivery system even if they might have some residual WMDs.

January 13, 2003: I don't think the British intelligence services would be
advising me this if they weren't doing it honestly and properly - press
conference.


http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/bwmdlies.html

They went in there to save the Iraqi people, tbh.

 

I guess they didn't get there quick enough to save the 500,000 Iraqi children who have died or been born malnourished and without medical supplies due to the sanctions. Well this kind of thing is pretty much akin to moral genocide isn't it? Or pretty damn close.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/418625.stm

[Toon's Taylor]

I still don't think Blair intentionally lied to the country.

Neither do I.

I think he was basically took to the cleaners by the USA, he simply didn't see them lying to him and was sucked in big style.

The UN were quite happy for Blair to keep hold of Bush's leash after 9/11, and because Blair had to do that, he was seen as the man to sort it all out, well at least provide the legal standing to enter Iraq.

Blair basically said to Bush, you need proof or you cant go storming in, within a couple of months Bush had his proof, and Blair either had to back off and let a strong ally go on without him, or stand shoulder to shoulder and hope for the best, he went in with the USA not knowing all the WMD proof was all bullshit, it really has cost him his job and up until then, very good reputation both home and abroad.

Blair was bitch whipped by the US and Bush, he thought British politics was sneaky, but he didn't have a clue what comes out of the USA.

[Parky]

I still don't think Blair intentionally lied to the country.

Neither do I.

I think he was basically took to the cleaners by the USA, he simply didn't see them lying to him and was sucked in big style.

The UN were quite happy for Blair to keep hold of Bush's leash after 9/11, and because Blair had to do that, he was seen as the man to sort it all out, well at least provide the legal standing to enter Iraq.

Blair basically said to Bush, you need proof or you cant go storming in, within a couple of months Bush had his proof, and Blair either had to back off and let a strong ally go on without him, or stand shoulder to shoulder and hope for the best, he went in with the USA not knowing all the WMD proof was all bullshit, it really has cost him his job and up until then, very good reputation both home and abroad.

Blair was bitch whipped by the US and Bush, he thought British politics was sneaky, but he didn't have a clue what comes out of the USA.

Fair post. But remember the 45min launch LIE and the Yellow cake LIE came from OUR SIDE along with him letting Powell LIE continually to the U.N. and use Bliar's RICIN threat angle.  Through all of which we were all kept in the dark about the real evaluations of the threat.

[Aphrodite]

I still don't think Blair intentionally lied to the country.

I agree.

[madras]

LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH:

April 4, 2002: I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass
destruction - on US NBC TV.

May 1: Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, he is in
breach of UN Security Council resolutions and he should come back into
compliance with those - Daily Mirror.

- BUT, Blair had NO proof of this when he said it merely a need to believe
it to justify his desire for war.

September 10: If we do not deal with the threat from this international
outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or
next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And
I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and
did nothing - TUC conference in Blackpool.

- BUT, there was no evidence that this might happen, then or now. Other than
the vague possibility, which could be stated against virtually ANY
militaristic regime.

September 24: The dossier...concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and
active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes.

- BUT, now the dossier seems to be of dubious substance and the evidence
Blair still hopes to find is merely documentary!! Were we conned into war
based on the fact that Iraq could make a paper dart in 45 minutes?

We know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium
from Africa - House of Commons.  The YELLOWCAKE LIE.

- BUT, we now know that this was based on forged documents from Niger, as
the USA has confirmed – did the British Government know this when it
announced this lie? Did the British Government make a statement that this
was a lie AS SOON AS THEY KNEW IT WAS?

November 18: I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge
from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime
change - Radio Monte Carlo.

- BUT, it has been confirmed by the USA that there was NO additional
evidence and that the war was not based on evidence but on a change of
attitude in America post 9/11!!

November 30: Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction, we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because
of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international
community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences - in
an interview.

- BUT, this was just an opinion not borne out by ANY evidence put before the
parliament or the peoples. There was NO evidence that Iraq had ANY
meaningful delivery system even if they might have some residual WMDs.

January 13, 2003: I don't think the British intelligence services would be
advising me this if they weren't doing it honestly and properly - press
conference.


http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/bwmdlies.html

They went in there to save the Iraqi people, tbh.

they went in there to save the wests economies,tbh (and pragmatically i'm not prepared to say that was wrong)

[Parky]

LYING THROUGH HIS TEETH:

April 4, 2002: I do believe there is a real danger with weapons of mass
destruction - on US NBC TV.

May 1: Saddam Hussein is developing weapons of mass destruction, he is in
breach of UN Security Council resolutions and he should come back into
compliance with those - Daily Mirror.

- BUT, Blair had NO proof of this when he said it merely a need to believe
it to justify his desire for war.

September 10: If we do not deal with the threat from this international
outlaw and his barbaric regime, it may not erupt and engulf us this month or
next; perhaps not even this year or the next. But it will at some point. And
I do not want it on my conscience that we knew the threat, saw it coming and
did nothing - TUC conference in Blackpool.

- BUT, there was no evidence that this might happen, then or now. Other than
the vague possibility, which could be stated against virtually ANY
militaristic regime.

September 24: The dossier...concludes that Iraq has chemical and biological
weapons, that Saddam has continued to produce them, that he has existing and
active military plans for the use of chemical and biological weapons, which
could be activated within 45 minutes.

- BUT, now the dossier seems to be of dubious substance and the evidence
Blair still hopes to find is merely documentary!! Were we conned into war
based on the fact that Iraq could make a paper dart in 45 minutes?

We know that Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium
from Africa - House of Commons.  The YELLOWCAKE LIE.

- BUT, we now know that this was based on forged documents from Niger, as
the USA has confirmed – did the British Government know this when it
announced this lie? Did the British Government make a statement that this
was a lie AS SOON AS THEY KNEW IT WAS?

November 18: I have got no doubt either that the purpose of our challenge
from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime
change - Radio Monte Carlo.

- BUT, it has been confirmed by the USA that there was NO additional
evidence and that the war was not based on evidence but on a change of
attitude in America post 9/11!!

November 30: Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass
destruction, we also know he is capable of using them. It is solely because
of the threat he poses - and for this reason alone - that the international
community has decided that Saddam must disarm or face the consequences - in
an interview.

- BUT, this was just an opinion not borne out by ANY evidence put before the
parliament or the peoples. There was NO evidence that Iraq had ANY
meaningful delivery system even if they might have some residual WMDs.

January 13, 2003: I don't think the British intelligence services would be
advising me this if they weren't doing it honestly and properly - press
conference.


http://www.dumpblair.co.uk/bwmdlies.html

They went in there to save the Iraqi people, tbh.

they went in there to save the wests economies,tbh (and pragmatically i'm not prepared to say that was wrong)

How is it the West's economies?

[madras]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US  had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

[Dinho lad]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

[madras]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

how is it hypocritical,more an honest assessment of the situation......why do you think the troops are there ?

[Dinho lad]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

how is it hypocritical,more an honest assessment of the situation......why do you think the troops are there ?

So you're saying you'll fight for what you need... even if you invade other lands and kill their people?

[madras]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

how is it hypocritical,more an honest assessment of the situation......why do you think the troops are there ?

So you're saying you'll fight for what you need... even if you invade other lands and kill their people?

yes.fighting for what you need is a lot easier to defend than political or religous dogma aswell.

i also think the reason it came to this is because of the wests foreign policy in the middle eastsince particularly since russia ceased to be a player(a few years before the curtain fell).

put bluntly,it's largely the wests fault the s*** you're in but it was left with little choice because of its earlier bad decisions.

[Dinho lad]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

how is it hypocritical,more an honest assessment of the situation......why do you think the troops are there ?

So you're saying you'll fight for what you need... even if you invade other lands and kill their people?

yes.fighting for what you need is a lot easier to defend than political or religous dogma aswell.

i also think the reason it came to this is because of the wests foreign policy in the middle eastsince particularly since russia ceased to be a player(a few years before the curtain fell).

put bluntly,it's largely the wests fault the s*** you're in but it was left with little choice because of its earlier bad decisions.

Ok, don’t complain the next time a Palestinian blows himself up in Israel fighting for their land.

Terrorist tbh.

[madras]

How is it the West's economies?

would we have went in if they didn't have the worlds 2nd largest supplies of oil ? and because the US had to get out of saudi as it was causing tension there...hey everyone hates saddam,we can base there to protect our supplies and we'll be seen as the good guys for kicking a tyrants arse.......didn't work out did it.

Typical of your hypocritical attitude towards us.

how is it hypocritical,more an honest assessment of the situation......why do you think the troops are there ?

So you're saying you'll fight for what you need... even if you invade other lands and kill their people?

yes.fighting for what you need is a lot easier to defend than political or religous dogma aswell.

i also think the reason it came to this is because of the wests foreign policy in the middle eastsince particularly since russia ceased to be a player(a few years before the curtain fell).

put bluntly,it's largely the wests fault the s*** you're in but it was left with little choice because of its earlier bad decisions.

Ok, don’t complain the next time a Palestinian blows himself up in Israel fighting for their land.

Terrorist tbh.

i'd understand why he done it,just as usual,like the war itself politicians and dogmas fight,innocent people who just want to get on with their lives die.

[Mowen]

Regardless of his 'lies', I think he has Britain's best interests at heart. The end question doesn't make any sense, as the answer could easily be both.

Please explain how it is Britain's best interest to have the deployment of out troops in Iraq dependent upon US elections

Doing what he thinks is in Britain's best interests, and what is actually in Britain's best interest are different things, as I would imagine you could understand. I wasn't (and wouldn't) defend his policies, but more the process by which he arrived at them.

And thanks for changing the question, Parkster. 

Edit: what I mean by the above, if I didn't explain it well enough, is that just because Blair thinks it's in Britain's best interests, doesn't necessarily mean it is - but my point still holds.

[Ridzuan]

This is just another of many propaganda articles which tells lies about Mr Blair and his party.Dont just believe what you read.

[Rob W]

we do Ridzuan, we do

because we can remember what he said on TV and the radio ourselves

Someone said "Always remember, Blair is an actor"