Did Clinton Lie? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Endymon32 · 01-09-2004, 09:59 PM

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/17/iraq.clinton/

Quote:

February 17, 1998
Web posted at: 2:38 p.m. EST (1938 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. President Clinton said Tuesday that Washington still favors a diplomatic solution to the Iraq crisis, but stressed that any solution must include free and unfettered access for U.N. weapons inspectors.

"A diplomatic solution must include, or meet, a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard: Iraq must agree -- and soon -- to free, full, unfettered access to these (inspection) sites anywhere in the country," Clinton said.

Clinton spoke at the Pentagon, after military leaders briefed him on preparations for possible strikes. Accompanying him were Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Hugh Shelton.

President Clinton gives an update on Iraq
The president urged Americans to be ready for a possible attack on Iraq, and he warned that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had used biological weapons against his own people -- and would likely use the weapons again unless he were prevented from doing so.

Hussein, said the president, "threatens the security of all the rest of us."

Clinton said Hussein and the Iraqi leadership had repeatedly lied to the United Nations about the country's weaponry.

"It is obvious that there is an attempt here based on the whole history of this (weapons inspections) operation since 1991 to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them and the feedstock necessary to produce them," Clinton said.

The president said that after the Gulf War ended in 1991, Iraq admitted having a massive offensive biological warfare capability, including:

5,000 gallons of Botulinum (causing Botulism)
2,000 gallons of Anthrax
25 biological-filled Scud warheads
157 aerial bombs
Clinton said Iraq still posed a threat to the national security of the United States and the "freedom-loving world."

'He ... will be to blame for the consequences'
He accused Iraq of trying to thwart U.N. inspections by reinterpreting the meaning of Gulf War resolutions as to which sites can be inspected, for how long and by which inspectors.

Clinton, who has ordered military forces to the gulf region in case a military strike is needed, warned Hussein not to continue to delay or oppose the U.N. demands on weapons inspections: "He, and he alone, will be to blame for the consequences."

The president said the U.S. had the military means to achieve the objective and secure the "vital strategic interests" of the United States in the Gulf region.

"A military operation cannot destroy all the weapons of mass destruction capacity. But it can, and will, leave him (Hussein) significantly worse off than he is now, in terms of the ability to threaten the world with these weapons or to attack his neighbors," Clinton said.

"Force can never be the first answer," he emphasized, "but sometimes it's the only answer."

Annan trip to Baghdad expected
Iraq, meantime, pledged to make "all serious and legitimate" efforts to peacefully resolve the crisis.

A statement issued by Hussein's Revolutionary Command Council said Iraq hopes U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will "come here with an open mind and free will" to conduct talks.

Annan, who planned to consult later Tuesday with the five permanent members of the Security Council, is expected to travel to Baghdad later in the week, diplomatic sources told CNN. They said Annan would be carrying a document clearly specifying "red lines beyond which Annan cannot go" in talks with Iraqi officials.

The document is described by one source as "tactical advice" from the council's permanent members to Annan. Under it, Annan could offer Hussein the prospect of modifying the inspection system for strictly residential buildings within Iraq's so-called "presidential" sites, and perhaps to leave some strictly residential buildings uninspected.

Reacting to Clinton's speech, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz denounced the threat of military action.

"The United States doesn't have authorization by the Security Council to attack Iraq by military means," he told CNN in a telephone interview from Baghdad.

Washington insists U.N. resolutions in effect since the Gulf War provide all the authorization needed for an attack.

Aziz also rejected the U.S. assertion that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are a threat to neighboring countries.

"Among all our neighbors, only Kuwait has joined the American plan to attack Iraq," he said. "So if all our neighbors are really threatened by us, why didn't they join the (U.S.-led) coalition."

Did he?

TheKak · 01-09-2004, 10:06 PM

He didnt lie in that article, but he is definatly a liar.

Lebell · 01-09-2004, 11:29 PM

I think both sides need to acknowledge the fact that almost all high level government officials on BOTH sides of the aisle thought Hussein had WMD's.

That includes Clinton and Bush.

Phaenx · 01-10-2004, 12:04 AM

And France, Germany, Russia and China prior to us deciding it was time to back our shit up.

Strange Famous · 01-10-2004, 02:40 AM

Clinton was one of the most right wing president's in American history.

It was well known that Iraq's chemical and biologicla weapons programmes had been abandoned in 1998 and that it was very unlikely that Iraq possessed these weapons, and almost certain that they would not nor where in a position to attack any other country unless provoked.

It was very well known that Iraq poses no realistic threat to any neighbouring nation state, and in stating that he believed that Iraq did, Clinto was either telling a intentional falsehood, or was a complete fool.

Peetster · 01-10-2004, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
It was well known that Iraq's chemical and biologicla weapons programmes had been abandoned in 1998...

It was very well known that Iraq poses no realistic threat...

I'm interested in seeing some proof to these statements. Since it was so "well known", you should have no difficulty citing credible news sources.

Strange Famous · 01-10-2004, 05:03 AM

Read almost any article into the Hutton Inquiry (an inquiry into a UK scientist murdered by the British government)

Strange Famous · 01-10-2004, 05:05 AM

The article I read this is, btw, was in my newspaper, The Guardian, on Thursday. I dont know if the same story would be online, but I can check for you if you really need to know.

What more proof do you need however, that the weapons did not exist? America would not have attacked Iraq if they did exist. The UN weapons inspections proved they had no weapons of mass destruction - that is why America invaded.

Strange Famous · 01-10-2004, 05:14 AM

Comment

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why wait for Hutton?

We already have all the facts we need to pronounce on the prime minister's judgment

David Clark
Friday January 9, 2004
The Guardian

This week's pre-emptive strike by Michael Howard over the long-awaited Hutton report has raised expectations of what was already shaping up to be the biggest political event of the year. In truth, far too much significance is being attached to Lord Hutton's report into the death of Dr David Kelly. The inquiry was not set up to make what must necessarily be political judgments about the conduct of those involved in the affair; nor is Hutton likely to interpret his mandate in that way. It is up to all of us to determine the importance of what he has unearthed, and for that we have no need to await his conclusions. The relevant facts are already in the public domain.
For similar reasons there is little point in pressing the case for a judicial inquiry into the wider issues raised by the Iraq war, however much we may sympathise with the motives of those intent on doing so. Many Labour MPs who opposed military action last March feel trapped between the desire to establish the truth and the certain knowledge of where it would lead. They want others to reach the conclusions that they themselves find too troubling to acknowledge. In a healthy democracy, the responsibility to decide cannot be delegated away like that. Hutton may not pronounce on the integrity of the government's Iraq policy, but he has provided us with enough evidence to form our own judgments. It's time we did so.

There is certainly no shortage of blame to be allocated on the basis of what we have learned. In its own hearings the foreign affairs select committee failed in its responsibility to hold the executive to account and instead engaged in what amounted to the politically motivated show trial of a BBC journalist. The intelligence services have been exposed both for the paucity of their knowledge about the true state of Iraq's military capabilities and their willingness to allow their already inaccurate assessments to be embellished for political effect. Both have a lot to do to restore public confidence.

The BBC does not emerge unscathed either. Andrew Gilligan was wrong to suggest that the government knew the 45-minute claim to be false, or at least he had no basis to make that claim at the time. And the BBC should not have described Dr Kelly as an "intelligence source". But let's keep these errors in perspective. The first was an unscripted slip that formed no part of the government's initial complaint. The second does not alter the fact that Dr Kelly was an important source who provided a truthful account of concerns within the intelligence community.

Gilligan and the BBC will continue to be targeted by those determined either to deflect criticism from the government or to undermine public service broadcasting. But it is worth remembering that they have done more to uncover the truth about the Iraq war than all of their critics put together. That is why they have been so viciously assailed. Besides, the BBC, alone among the parties to this saga, has been willing to own up to its failings.

There can be no moral equivalence when it comes to judging the prime minister and his government, despite the best efforts of some to spread the blame. Those charged with making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the nation must be expected to meet a higher standard of propriety than the journalists who report on their activities. It is here that the main burden of accountability must fall.

By any standard, the government's treatment of Dr Kelly was callous and cynical. Having promised to protect him from the glare of publicity, his employers cut him adrift, dropping a series of hints about his identity and inviting journalists to guess his name on the promise that it would be confirmed. As we were reminded this week by Michael Howard during prime minister's question time, this process was initiated on the direct instructions of the prime minister. His suggestion that this game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink did not amount to a deliberate strategy to name Dr Kelly is pure sophistry.

There is no defence, either, in the much-repeated claim that his naming was inevitable. It became inevitable only once No 10 decided to use him as a stick with which to beat the BBC. This might have been forgivable had it been the only way for the government to defend itself against a malicious smear. But we now know that there was no smear. The BBC's report was correct in essence, if not in every detail.

Gilligan claimed that the government's Iraq dossier had been "sexed up". A senior defence intelligence official told Hutton it had been "over-egged". The difference is one of taste rather than substance. The same official said there was no solid evidence of continued Iraqi production of chemical weapons after 1998. Yet Tony Blair's foreword to the dossier claimed that such production had been "established beyond doubt". There was a progressive hardening of the language used to describe Iraq's capabilities, a process that started after Alastair Campbell rejected the joint intelligence committee's original draft and called for something "new" and "revelatory".

All caveats and facts that might have revealed just how sketchy the real intelligence picture was were systematically filtered out and replaced with words of resounding certainty. Most damaging of all is the revelation that Blair's own chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, acknowledged that "the document does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam". He said the final draft would need to make this clear, and yet the prime minister did the opposite, claiming in his foreword that the threat from Iraq was "serious and current".

The plain truth is that, had we known then what we know now (and, more to the point, what the government has known all along), the dossier would have been laughed out of town. But no attempt was ever made to explain that the notorious 45-minute claim referred to battlefield munitions only, and came from a single, uncorroborated source. If the attempt had been made, the Sun would not have declared: "Brits 45 minutes from doom." That was one media inaccuracy Blair wanted on the record.

Hutton has revealed a pattern of misrepresentation and selective disclosure that could only have had one purpose. Blair will continue to deny that he lied to the British people, but New Labour's media strategy is based on the post-modern dictum that perception creates reality. In this case, the perception, skilfully encouraged by Downing Street, of an Iraqi regime armed to the teeth and ready to strike, created the reality of a very big lie indeed.

Many people find it hard to separate these issues from their own opinions about whether it was right or wrong to go to war in Iraq, yet it is important that they do. Even those who think that it was, on balance, a good thing cannot afford to be indifferent to the integrity of their government and the ability of their prime minister to recognise the truth. Blair wants us to "move on", but continues to assert against all known fact that everything he said about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was right. Whether he believes this or not is no longer the issue. Fantasist or liar, Blair is unfit to govern.

· David Clark is a former Labour government adviser

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/sto...119390,00.html

Endymon32 · 01-10-2004, 07:25 PM

I knew the Bush bashers would avoid this thread.

debaser · 01-10-2004, 07:31 PM

I'm a Bush basher, and yes Clinton did lie as well. Congrats, we have now proven that they are both dirtbag politicians.

silent_jay · 01-10-2004, 07:58 PM

bush basher here as well and do we not realize yet that all politicians lie Clinton lied, Bush definitley lies i've come to expect politicians to lie you just have to find the one who lies less.

2wolves · 01-10-2004, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peetster
I'm interested in seeing some proof to these statements. Since it was so "well known", you should have no difficulty citing credible news sources.

Operation Desert Fox. Fairly common knowledge.

2Wolves

Endymon32 · 01-11-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Strange Famous
\.

What more proof do you need however, that the weapons did not exist? America would not have attacked Iraq if they did exist. The UN weapons inspections proved they had no weapons of mass destruction - that is why America invaded.

LOL Had Iraq cooperated then their would have been no need for an invasion. Your logic, as always, gives me a chuckle.

SLM3 · 01-11-2004, 02:45 PM

And your logic is constantly short sighted.

North Korea (most likely) has WMD so they get negotiations. Iraq doesn't, so they get the invasion. Your mindset is based on the laughable assumption that the US was only interested in Iraq because of its perceived physical threat to the US.

SLM3

silent_jay · 01-11-2004, 06:13 PM

the invasion of Iraq had more to do with George Bush Sr. and the whole assassination attempt than anything else i agree with SLM3 that N. Korea most likely has WMD and hey let's negotiate with them but that Saddam they've never found anything but maybe Bush had a hunch.

Endymon32 · 01-11-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SLM3
And your logic is constantly short sighted.

North Korea (most likely) has WMD so they get negotiations. Iraq doesn't, so they get the invasion. Your mindset is based on the laughable assumption that the US was only interested in Iraq because of its perceived physical threat to the US.

SLM3

If we invade North Korea, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans will die. But that doesnt seem to matter to you. So Bush is doint the right thing with North Korea, or are you adovacting the deaths of our allies? Boy, talk about short sightedness.

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-11-2004, 07:16 PM

I mean I don't think that many people will die, N. Korea would only launch something like 75,000 rounds of artilerry in the first day.

silent_jay · 01-11-2004, 07:20 PM

so are you saying its alright for Iraqi's to die

Mojo_PeiPei · 01-11-2004, 07:28 PM

By no means am I saying that. All I'm saying is that Seoul would be completely reduced to rubble in a matter of hours.

almostaugust · 01-12-2004, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
I knew the Bush bashers would avoid this thread.

Clinton probably lied his arse off- the point is that Bush has led the US into an illegal attack on another country. And he has made it clear in his National Security Strategy that he will do this to any country who he believes gets in the way of his dubious objectives (with or without international authorisation).

SLM3 · 01-13-2004, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
If we invade North Korea, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans will die. But that doesnt seem to matter to you. So Bush is doint the right thing with North Korea, or are you adovacting the deaths of our allies? Boy, talk about short sightedness.

But if Iraq was the imminent threat we were all told he was, what was to stop him from using all of those weapons you're so sure he had? All he needed was 45 minutes, remember? Wasn't the potential for hundreds of thousands to die also there? What's the difference?

SLM3

Endymon32 · 01-13-2004, 05:32 PM

We attacked Three days earlier than we announced. It was called suprise.

magua · 01-13-2004, 05:41 PM

Clinton lied about getting his chicken choked, and then (more seriously) about getting someone else to lie to a grand jury.

He got impeached.

Bush lied about getting the USA into a war. And if what Tip O'Neill says -- which may or may not be true, don't really know yet -- we're talking the ha hugely orchestrated lie over a span of many months.

So, I'm waiting.

(Though I'll take this oppurtunity to say that I thought the Clinton haters were nuts during the 90s. Really kind of amused me to see them get worked up about things. But now, I look around and see all the Bush haters doing the same thing, and I realize it's all just very, very sad.)

HarmlessRabbit · 01-14-2004, 12:33 AM

Hmm, the Dec 2003 registration date, the bad spelling, the trolling, the liberal bashing.... wait a sec....

ENDYMON32 IS FOOD EATER LAD.

Weren't you banned?

SLM3 · 01-14-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Endymon32
We attacked Three days earlier than we announced. It was called suprise.

Stupid Saddam. All those months of the US war machine getting warmed up and he STILL didn't get off his ass and get the nukes ready. Just like the procrastinator he was, he planned on getting the WMD ready just in time for the deadline he was so sure the US would stick to. I'm still not sure what he did in the weeks after the US started the war though, maybe he lost the keys to the weapons and that kept him from firing them. It's a good thing the US knew all of this would happen, or else hundreds of thousands might have been killed.

SLM3

theusername · 01-14-2004, 04:42 PM

Clinton and Bush did not lie about Iraq. They received false information that the world believed to be true and told the american public. Even if we dont find one missile im sure hella glad Saddams gone.

Its funny that there's a "controversy" over Bush saying he wanted to invade Iraq. Iraq has a very loose connection to Al-Qaeda (they both hate america more than they dislike each other.) Hell if Clinton had half the balls Bush did he would have done the job in '98 and killed Bin Laden while he was walking out and about recruiting terrorists. No one seems to remember a good 8 years of total lack of intelligence where all these organizations became highly organized.

Also the area where we invaded is an important step to reforming the middle east. A lot of these countries governments are starting to get the message, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia.

North Korea is completely different in that they have not mislead the world for 10 years. They openly admit they have WMD, we all know at this point a war with them is just retarded as our troops are already overextended throughout the world.

AHhh just my 2 cents

Superbelt · 01-14-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HarmlessRabbit
Hmm, the Dec 2003 registration date, the bad spelling, the trolling, the liberal bashing.... wait a sec....

ENDYMON32 IS FOOD EATER LAD.

Weren't you banned?

Hmm, looks like Endymon32 is banned now... But food eater lad he is not. I know FEL from another board, if this was him, I would know.

Curious though, why was Endy banned? too much trolling?

silent_jay · 01-14-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theusername
Hell if Clinton had half the balls Bush did he would have done the job in '98

and if Bush Sr. played his cards right he would have been out in 91

01-09-2004, 10:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
TheKak Insane Location: Virginia	He didnt lie in that article, but he is definatly a liar. __________________ Roses are red, violets are blue, I'm a schizophrenic and so am I.

01-09-2004, 11:29 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I think both sides need to acknowledge the fact that almost all high level government officials on BOTH sides of the aisle thought Hussein had WMD's. That includes Clinton and Bush. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-10-2004, 12:04 AM	#4 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	And France, Germany, Russia and China prior to us deciding it was time to back our shit up. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

01-10-2004, 02:40 AM	#5 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Clinton was one of the most right wing president's in American history. It was well known that Iraq's chemical and biologicla weapons programmes had been abandoned in 1998 and that it was very unlikely that Iraq possessed these weapons, and almost certain that they would not nor where in a position to attack any other country unless provoked. It was very well known that Iraq poses no realistic threat to any neighbouring nation state, and in stating that he believed that Iraq did, Clinto was either telling a intentional falsehood, or was a complete fool. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-10-2004, 05:03 AM	#7 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Read almost any article into the Hutton Inquiry (an inquiry into a UK scientist murdered by the British government) __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-10-2004, 05:05 AM	#8 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	The article I read this is, btw, was in my newspaper, The Guardian, on Thursday. I dont know if the same story would be online, but I can check for you if you really need to know. What more proof do you need however, that the weapons did not exist? America would not have attacked Iraq if they did exist. The UN weapons inspections proved they had no weapons of mass destruction - that is why America invaded. __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-10-2004, 05:14 AM	#9 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	Comment -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why wait for Hutton? We already have all the facts we need to pronounce on the prime minister's judgment David Clark Friday January 9, 2004 The Guardian This week's pre-emptive strike by Michael Howard over the long-awaited Hutton report has raised expectations of what was already shaping up to be the biggest political event of the year. In truth, far too much significance is being attached to Lord Hutton's report into the death of Dr David Kelly. The inquiry was not set up to make what must necessarily be political judgments about the conduct of those involved in the affair; nor is Hutton likely to interpret his mandate in that way. It is up to all of us to determine the importance of what he has unearthed, and for that we have no need to await his conclusions. The relevant facts are already in the public domain. For similar reasons there is little point in pressing the case for a judicial inquiry into the wider issues raised by the Iraq war, however much we may sympathise with the motives of those intent on doing so. Many Labour MPs who opposed military action last March feel trapped between the desire to establish the truth and the certain knowledge of where it would lead. They want others to reach the conclusions that they themselves find too troubling to acknowledge. In a healthy democracy, the responsibility to decide cannot be delegated away like that. Hutton may not pronounce on the integrity of the government's Iraq policy, but he has provided us with enough evidence to form our own judgments. It's time we did so. There is certainly no shortage of blame to be allocated on the basis of what we have learned. In its own hearings the foreign affairs select committee failed in its responsibility to hold the executive to account and instead engaged in what amounted to the politically motivated show trial of a BBC journalist. The intelligence services have been exposed both for the paucity of their knowledge about the true state of Iraq's military capabilities and their willingness to allow their already inaccurate assessments to be embellished for political effect. Both have a lot to do to restore public confidence. The BBC does not emerge unscathed either. Andrew Gilligan was wrong to suggest that the government knew the 45-minute claim to be false, or at least he had no basis to make that claim at the time. And the BBC should not have described Dr Kelly as an "intelligence source". But let's keep these errors in perspective. The first was an unscripted slip that formed no part of the government's initial complaint. The second does not alter the fact that Dr Kelly was an important source who provided a truthful account of concerns within the intelligence community. Gilligan and the BBC will continue to be targeted by those determined either to deflect criticism from the government or to undermine public service broadcasting. But it is worth remembering that they have done more to uncover the truth about the Iraq war than all of their critics put together. That is why they have been so viciously assailed. Besides, the BBC, alone among the parties to this saga, has been willing to own up to its failings. There can be no moral equivalence when it comes to judging the prime minister and his government, despite the best efforts of some to spread the blame. Those charged with making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the nation must be expected to meet a higher standard of propriety than the journalists who report on their activities. It is here that the main burden of accountability must fall. By any standard, the government's treatment of Dr Kelly was callous and cynical. Having promised to protect him from the glare of publicity, his employers cut him adrift, dropping a series of hints about his identity and inviting journalists to guess his name on the promise that it would be confirmed. As we were reminded this week by Michael Howard during prime minister's question time, this process was initiated on the direct instructions of the prime minister. His suggestion that this game of nudge-nudge, wink-wink did not amount to a deliberate strategy to name Dr Kelly is pure sophistry. There is no defence, either, in the much-repeated claim that his naming was inevitable. It became inevitable only once No 10 decided to use him as a stick with which to beat the BBC. This might have been forgivable had it been the only way for the government to defend itself against a malicious smear. But we now know that there was no smear. The BBC's report was correct in essence, if not in every detail. Gilligan claimed that the government's Iraq dossier had been "sexed up". A senior defence intelligence official told Hutton it had been "over-egged". The difference is one of taste rather than substance. The same official said there was no solid evidence of continued Iraqi production of chemical weapons after 1998. Yet Tony Blair's foreword to the dossier claimed that such production had been "established beyond doubt". There was a progressive hardening of the language used to describe Iraq's capabilities, a process that started after Alastair Campbell rejected the joint intelligence committee's original draft and called for something "new" and "revelatory". All caveats and facts that might have revealed just how sketchy the real intelligence picture was were systematically filtered out and replaced with words of resounding certainty. Most damaging of all is the revelation that Blair's own chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, acknowledged that "the document does nothing to demonstrate a threat, let alone an imminent threat from Saddam". He said the final draft would need to make this clear, and yet the prime minister did the opposite, claiming in his foreword that the threat from Iraq was "serious and current". The plain truth is that, had we known then what we know now (and, more to the point, what the government has known all along), the dossier would have been laughed out of town. But no attempt was ever made to explain that the notorious 45-minute claim referred to battlefield munitions only, and came from a single, uncorroborated source. If the attempt had been made, the Sun would not have declared: "Brits 45 minutes from doom." That was one media inaccuracy Blair wanted on the record. Hutton has revealed a pattern of misrepresentation and selective disclosure that could only have had one purpose. Blair will continue to deny that he lied to the British people, but New Labour's media strategy is based on the post-modern dictum that perception creates reality. In this case, the perception, skilfully encouraged by Downing Street, of an Iraqi regime armed to the teeth and ready to strike, created the reality of a very big lie indeed. Many people find it hard to separate these issues from their own opinions about whether it was right or wrong to go to war in Iraq, yet it is important that they do. Even those who think that it was, on balance, a good thing cannot afford to be indifferent to the integrity of their government and the ability of their prime minister to recognise the truth. Blair wants us to "move on", but continues to assert against all known fact that everything he said about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was right. Whether he believes this or not is no longer the issue. Fantasist or liar, Blair is unfit to govern. · David Clark is a former Labour government adviser http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/sto...119390,00.html __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

01-10-2004, 07:25 PM	#10 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	I knew the Bush bashers would avoid this thread.

01-10-2004, 07:31 PM	#11 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	I'm a Bush basher, and yes Clinton did lie as well. Congrats, we have now proven that they are both dirtbag politicians. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

01-10-2004, 07:58 PM	#12 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	bush basher here as well and do we not realize yet that all politicians lie Clinton lied, Bush definitley lies i've come to expect politicians to lie you just have to find the one who lies less. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

01-11-2004, 02:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
SLM3 Insane	And your logic is constantly short sighted. North Korea (most likely) has WMD so they get negotiations. Iraq doesn't, so they get the invasion. Your mindset is based on the laughable assumption that the US was only interested in Iraq because of its perceived physical threat to the US. SLM3

01-11-2004, 06:13 PM	#16 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	the invasion of Iraq had more to do with George Bush Sr. and the whole assassination attempt than anything else i agree with SLM3 that N. Korea most likely has WMD and hey let's negotiate with them but that Saddam they've never found anything but maybe Bush had a hunch. __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

01-11-2004, 07:16 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I mean I don't think that many people will die, N. Korea would only launch something like 75,000 rounds of artilerry in the first day. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-11-2004, 07:20 PM	#19 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	so are you saying its alright for Iraqi's to die __________________ Absence makes the heart grow fonder

01-11-2004, 07:28 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	By no means am I saying that. All I'm saying is that Seoul would be completely reduced to rubble in a matter of hours. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

01-13-2004, 05:32 PM	#23 (permalink)
Endymon32 Banned	We attacked Three days earlier than we announced. It was called suprise.

01-13-2004, 05:41 PM	#24 (permalink)
magua Tilted	Clinton lied about getting his chicken choked, and then (more seriously) about getting someone else to lie to a grand jury. He got impeached. Bush lied about getting the USA into a war. And if what Tip O'Neill says -- which may or may not be true, don't really know yet -- we're talking the ha hugely orchestrated lie over a span of many months. So, I'm waiting. (Though I'll take this oppurtunity to say that I thought the Clinton haters were nuts during the 90s. Really kind of amused me to see them get worked up about things. But now, I look around and see all the Bush haters doing the same thing, and I realize it's all just very, very sad.)

01-14-2004, 12:33 AM	#25 (permalink)
HarmlessRabbit Junkie Location: San Jose, CA	Hmm, the Dec 2003 registration date, the bad spelling, the trolling, the liberal bashing.... wait a sec.... ENDYMON32 IS FOOD EATER LAD. Weren't you banned?

01-14-2004, 04:42 PM	#27 (permalink)
theusername Insane	Clinton and Bush did not lie about Iraq. They received false information that the world believed to be true and told the american public. Even if we dont find one missile im sure hella glad Saddams gone. Its funny that there's a "controversy" over Bush saying he wanted to invade Iraq. Iraq has a very loose connection to Al-Qaeda (they both hate america more than they dislike each other.) Hell if Clinton had half the balls Bush did he would have done the job in '98 and killed Bin Laden while he was walking out and about recruiting terrorists. No one seems to remember a good 8 years of total lack of intelligence where all these organizations became highly organized. Also the area where we invaded is an important step to reforming the middle east. A lot of these countries governments are starting to get the message, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia. North Korea is completely different in that they have not mislead the world for 10 years. They openly admit they have WMD, we all know at this point a war with them is just retarded as our troops are already overextended throughout the world. AHhh just my 2 cents