Bremer 'rejects' Blair WMD claims

[Donutboy 0]

The US official running Iraq appears to have contradicted Tony Blair's claim Saddam Hussein had laboratories for developing weapons of mass destruction.

The prime minister said in a Christmas message to UK troops that the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) had unearthed "massive evidence" of clandestine labs.

The head of the Coalition Provisional Authority said it was not true.

Paul Bremer said it sounded like a "red herring" made up by someone to upset the rebuilding effort.

But Mr Bremer seems to have been unaware that the quotes had come from Mr Blair when they were put to him in an interview on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme.

"I don't know where those words come from but that is not what (ISG chief) David Kay has said," he said.

"I have read his reports so I don't know who said that.

"It sounds like a bit of a red herring to me. It sounds like someone who doesn't agree with the policy sets up a red herring then knocks it down."

However when it was pointed out the remarks had come from the leader of the US's closest ally, Mr Bremer seemed to pull back from his original remarks.

"There is actually a lot of evidence that had been made public," he said.

Bremer 'rejects' Blair WMD claims

Of course, Blair may be getting desperate. It appears more and more likely his politcal career is over. His own party is asking for his resignation.

Short calls on Blair to resign

Clare Short has called on Tony Blair to resign because she says he deceived the British people over the Iraq war.

She accused the prime minister of risking his own legacy because of an obsession with "his place in history".

She predicted he would not lead Labour into the next election and urged him to resign for the honour of Britain.

Ms Short was international development secretary before the Iraq war but left the cabinet afterwards in protest....

.... Her criticisms were echoed by Labour left-winger Diane Abbott, who told the same programme Mr Blair has risked backbench rebellions by making loyal MPs feel like "pillocks" over the Iraq war.

"I never believed this thing about missiles being ready for fire in 45 minutes but sadly some of my colleagues did and they are the ones that are most bitter and disgruntled," she said.

Ms Short suggested that Mr Blair had behaved worse than John Profumo, a cabinet minister who resigned in 1963 over his affair with Christine Keeler.

"Profumo lied about having an affair with a prostitute and had to resign," she said.

"If you are going to start getting into deceit when you are going to war and risking human life it has gone too far."

She said the intelligence agencies knew Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction - the premise for the war.....

Short calls on Blair to resign

Isn't it ironic how closely the British situation mirrors our's on the scandals? Clinton is impeached for lying about an affair and Bush's lies lead to massive American casualties but isn't even questioned.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Wait a second. I'm not saying that every life isn't valuable. It's hard to take even one person dying in our military. BUT...

"massive casualties"?

What planet are you on Donut? We toppled a regime in 19 days and haven't even been going at it in Iraq for a year yet and we've had less than 500 killed. While sad, that is no where near "massive", especially considering what has been accomplished.

You need to get a clue and stop with the propaganda mode. It's getting really old hearing you exaggerate things day after day. Either argue with a modicum of common sense or shut up. Please.

[MDM4AU 337]

US War Casualties

Revolution 6,188

War of 1812 4,505

Mexican War 4,152

Civil War (both sides) 498,332

Spanish-American War 2,446

World War I 116,516

World War II 405,399

Korea 54,246

Vietnam 58,167

Desert Storm 293

Iraq '03 474

In case anyone was wondering.

[DKW 86 7,726]

WTC 3300 approx.

USS Arizona 1174

RMS Titanic 700 approx.

Beirut Barracks Blast 219

Point is we lost more in one day than we lost so far in Iraq and I bet the guys that left us would all tell us to go again.

The body armor fiasco is bad, but it should have been upgraded 5-10 years ago.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

... Clinton is impeached for lying about an affair ...

Since accuracy is important to me, I think it's important for me to correct you on this. Nothing personal, but anyone who reads this thread needs to know that your opinion and what the facts really are may be two entirely different things. Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives on two distinct & separate charges: perjury and obstruction of justice.

No matter how embarrassing the truth is to him personally, the Chief Executive should know that it is his sworn duty to uphold & execute ALL the laws of this country. The lesson for Democrats (all other political parties don't require this to be explained to them) is that even the sitting President is not permitted to suborn perjury & obstruct justice. That's it in a nutshell. All that other nonsense about this being a sex scandal & he was just trying to protect Hillary/Chelsea ( ) are red herrings.

[Donutboy 0]

Wait a second. I'm not saying that every life isn't valuable. It's hard to take even one person dying in our military. BUT...

"massive casualties"?

What planet are you on Donut? We toppled a regime in 19 days and haven't even been going at it in Iraq for a year yet and we've had less than 500 killed. While sad, that is no where near "massive", especially considering what has been accomplished.

You need to get a clue and stop with the propaganda mode. It's getting really old hearing you exaggerate things day after day. Either argue with a modicum of common sense or shut up. Please.

Before you tell someone to get a clue, maybe you should get one yourself. Yes, there have been just under 500 "American" casualties, but soldiers aren't the only casualties in this war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also been killed and/or maimed. Of course, those are now sanitized and called collateral damage. Tens of thousands!! Wouldn't you call that masive casualties?

[Donutboy 0]

... Clinton is impeached for lying about an affair ...

Since accuracy is important to me, I think it's important for me to correct you on this. Nothing personal, but anyone who reads this thread needs to know that your opinion and what the facts really are may be two entirely different things. Clinton was impeached in the House of Representatives on two distinct & separate charges: perjury and obstruction of justice.

No matter how embarrassing the truth is to him personally, the Chief Executive should know that it is his sworn duty to uphold & execute ALL the laws of this country. The lesson for Democrats (all other political parties don't require this to be explained to them) is that even the sitting President is not permitted to suborn perjury & obstruct justice. That's it in a nutshell. All that other nonsense about this being a sex scandal & he was just trying to protect Hillary/Chelsea ( ) are red herrings.

Maybe you need to look at the rules for impeachment. The federal government is allowed to impeach a sitting president in cases of "high crimes and treason." The issue the Republicans impeached Clinton on was supposedly a "high crime." Lying under oath in a "civil case" is not a high crime but it's all the Republicans could get after eight years of their witch hunt. Clinton's lie about his affair is akin to you or I lying in traffic court.

[Donutboy 0]

WTC 3300 approx.

USS Arizona 1174

RMS Titanic 700 approx.

Beirut Barracks Blast 219

Point is we lost more in one day than we lost so far in Iraq and I bet the guys that left us would all tell us to go again.

The body armor fiasco is bad, but it should have been upgraded 5-10 years ago.

5-10 years ago, we didn't have our Guard units overseas. We had enough body armor for our regular military but not for the guard. We've had 9 months since the start of the war and over two years since the start of the Afghan war to correct any shortages. Not only have we not corrected any shortages but we won't even allow our troops and their families to supply their own protection.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

Maybe you need to look at the rules for impeachment. The federal government is allowed to impeach a sitting president in cases of "high crimes and treason." The issue the Republicans impeached Clinton on was supposedly a "high crime." Lying under oath in a "civil case" is not a high crime but it's all the Republicans could get after eight years of their witch hunt. Clinton's lie about his affair is akin to you or I lying in traffic court.

Well, I took your advice and consulted the US Constituion. Article II, Section 4. reads as follows:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any of the officeholders listed above can be impeached for as little as a misdemeanor. Perjury is a felony. I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice is not looked on as an offense no more egregious than a traffic violation.

Donutboy, I'm really not interested in exposing you as someone who doesn't know what the he## they're talking about. I'm more interested in setting the record straight. Please, ... do a little research before posting.

[Donutboy 0]

Maybe you need to look at the rules for impeachment. The federal government is allowed to impeach a sitting president in cases of "high crimes and treason." The issue the Republicans impeached Clinton on was supposedly a "high crime." Lying under oath in a "civil case" is not a high crime but it's all the Republicans could get after eight years of their witch hunt. Clinton's lie about his affair is akin to you or I lying in traffic court.

Well, I took your advice and consulted the US Constituion. Article II, Section 4. reads as follows:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Any of the officeholders listed above can be impeached for as little as a misdemeanor. Perjury is a felony. I'm pretty sure obstruction of justice is not looked on as an offense no more egregious than a traffic violation.

Donutboy, I'm really not interested in exposing you as someone who doesn't know what the he## they're talking about. I'm more interested in setting the record straight. Please, ... do a little research before posting.

Perjury in a "civil case" is not a felony. Perjury in a criminal case would be. You're right, one of us doesn't know what the he!! they're talking about, but it ain't me. The majority of Senators sat in the jurybox and decided the same thing.

[AUloggerhead 2,356]

The majority of Senators sat in the jurybox and decided the same thing.

Is perjury in a civil case a lessor offense than a misdemeanor? Or, how about obstruction of justice? If so, then you may have a point. Otherwise, no. The majority of Senators decided against removing clinton from office for the crimes for which he was impeached by the House. That is their right under the Constitution. I can't say for certain why they decided so, but I think it's strange that the the Arkansas Bar had no qualms with finding clinton's actions serious enough to disbar him.

[TxWarEagle 3]

Clinton is impeached for lying about an affair and Bush's lies lead to massive American casualties but isn't even questioned.

Tens of thousands!! Wouldn't you call that masive casualties?

Not massive american casualties.

[MDM4AU 337]

...massive American casualties but isn't even questioned.

Before you tell someone to get a clue, maybe you should get one yourself. Yes, there have been just under 500 "American" casualties, but soldiers aren't the only casualties in this war.  Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also been killed and/or maimed.

SO, when you spoke of the AMERICAN casualties in the original post, you were actually including Iraqis, Iranians, Ethiopians, Brazilians, French, Chinese, etc... you know... 'cause they are all AMERICAN, right?

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Damn! You guys beat me to it!

Just like a Dem to obfuscate and change his argument midstream.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

Before you tell someone to get a clue, maybe you should get one yourself. Yes, there have been just under 500 "American" casualties, but soldiers aren't the only casualties in this war. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have also been killed and/or maimed. Of course, those are now sanitized and called collateral damage. Tens of thousands!! Wouldn't you call that masive casualties?

So I guess every single civilian death has been at the hands of the Americans and that makes them all Bush's fault? Does your "civilian" definition count the Iraqi military that fought against us for the first three weeks? They were enemy combatants. And how many of those "tens of thousands" of Iraqi civilians - including their police and other officials - have been killed by terrorists in the past few months - terrorists which may or may not be other Iraqis? And lets not forget the tens of thousands that Sadaam and Ebay and Toupee killed, and would have continued to kill, had they remained in power.