Tony says ...believe me as much I believe me

from JoeUser Forums

Published in The Guardian (03/02/2004)

Tony has been constant in his claim about Iraq, until today... an inquiry is going to be launched about the absence of WMD. May be that the more convinced is a politician means how big is its need to convince you...

'[Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programme is active detailed and growing. The policy of containment is not working.' 

September 24 2002

'I have got no doubt that the purpose of our challenge from the UN is disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, it is not regime change.'

November 18 2002

'Not only do we know that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, we also know he is capable of using them.'

November 30 2002

'We are now asked to accept that in the last few years, contrary to all history and all intelligence, he decide unilaterally to destroy weapons. Such a claim is palpably absurd.'

March 18 2003

'Tonight, British servicemen and women are engaged from air, land and sea. Their mission: to remove Saddam Hussein from Power and disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.'

March 20 2003

'Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a little bit. I remain confident that they will be found.'

April 28 2003

' I am absolutely convinced that and confident about the case of weapons of mass destruction... you abd others will be eating some of your words.'

politics
6,339 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I sometimes forget how the Brits are struggling with your own false leaders. I watched by cam in Trafalgar square as London let Bush know how they felt about his foreign policy. It was funny for me to watch the crowds and all the gesticulations he had to go through to escape the mobs while the 'controlled-media' here told us nothing had happened unusual at all, and his poll numbers were up. On one occassion he had to be raced out a back door as the protest turned the corner.
Of course England should be credited for having more freedom of expression than we in the United States for this. They refused every attempt of Bush to force 'protest zones' in England which he forces here, and this is due to the well-organized activism of that Country as opposed to the lack of alliance that protest has here. I think the best way to unite the various groups would be to march in a protest of 'protest zones'. The thing about the protest zone is that it subsumes that if freedom of expression is legal in the 'zone' then it must necessarily be illeagal everywhere else in the country. A sad commentary on our 1st amendment deterioration. Anyway, what the heck am I doing way over here in a protest zone when the blog was just some quotes of Blair? Soooorrrrryyyy.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
It's alrigth. I didn't comment it. You have the right to do it for me. I post it because Blair is famous in england for his high level of spinning. I have to reckon that he is probably one of the best politician in europe for that, may be the best... However, you always have to understand today with the light of yesterday. It's becomind harder with such spin master.
Object Desktop - Get all of our enhancement utilities in one suite
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
I imagine that Tony Blair supported America because he thought it was the right thing to do. He made up the concern about the weapons because he thought that it would be something that would convince the British public that the war was a good thing. My impression is that it didn't convince the British public and now looks really bad because they weren't found.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Unfortunately for Tony Blair, he made WMD the one and only issue for going to war. There was no secondary issue. Hence it now looks very bad for him that WMD may not exist. In reality though the British public are very apathetic towards the entire issue though and he's unlikely to have any major problems. None of my British colleagues even care that he may have lied to them. He's a politician!!!! They expect it. They're more amused that so many Britons were stupid enough to believe him in the first place.

Paul.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right Paul, the lack of trust surrounding every politician's speech is shared everywhere and lead to increasing cynism. However, politician should been accountable for their act and spin and not necessarly by the any other year poll.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
Accountable to whom?

There lies the problem. To the people is of course the right answer, but who represents the people, who ensures they get an unbiased evenhanded view? Other politicians? The media?

No, most people realise that in todays society it is very hard for politicians to be held accountable. Too much bias and you run the risk of a witch hunt (how many times have I heard the call for a politician to resign for stupid reasons), too little bias and you have no accountability (WMD case for war being a good example). Throw in political infighting, media sensationalism and general public apathy and there goes any real chance for accountability.


Paul.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Right,

The more scaring thing is general public apathy, I feel that people aren't interested in political in general because they reckon to be useless to influence any decision. This is a dangerous because the more moderate don't vote the more influent become the extremist. Too much story like this can open some doors that should have been let closed. It's not the case in UK, but in france the rise of the extremist (left or right) show that politician by not taking their responsibility play with the fire.