Politics OnLine home

Politics OnLine UK

Uk Politics

November 2005

Blog

Anglican schism threat

A watched society

Daylight robbery

October 2005

I believe in...

In a world gone mad

September 2005

Hurricane Katrina

June 2005

an idea whose time had come

March 2005

The world that  we created

Rule of law breached

Terrorism and Law

December 2004

A most terrible thing

Identity cards

The morality error

November 2004

Butt out

Hunt ban

Colin Powell resigns

October 2004

US election

Fahrenheit 9/11

Troop request not political

Intentions

Hostage killed

The personal is political

Jobz for the Boyz

Dear Mike, Iraq sucks

Tory conference 2004

The right is winning.

September 2004

Do what you will

De facto terrorism

Brutal honesty

Perish the thought

New Iraq war

The hunt

August 2004

Terrorism threat UK

July 2004

Hazel Blears MP

Geraldine Smith MP

Acts of terror

War and people

Fahrenheit 9/11

June 2004

The Sun

David Westwood

January 2004

Hutton report

Michael Howard's Tories?

Camp Xray

What is going on?

Protesters arrested

Hutton enquiry

Young people

Oh happy day!

Making a profit?

David Kelly

Row over 'sexed up' report

TA sent to Iraq

Crooks in suits

Dealing with Spam

Pensions outrage

Ink Cartridge scandal

Extradite and be damned

No confidence

Desperately seeking safety

Response to Mr Blair

Personal comments on the Bll of Rights

Bill of Rights

 

Uploaded: 11 October 2004

Intentions speak louder than war.

Or, as Jack Straw put it, referring to the Iraq Survey Group report, the report shows that the threat from Saddam "in terms of his intentions ... [was] even starker than we have seen before". 

It's amazing! I am fast concluding that we would be politically better served if we got a bunch of pigs and dropped them in a vat of oil, at least it would be a damned sight easier to get hold of them than anything from our politicians today. 

So Saddam had an intention to produce WMD at some point in the future. Really? When? And what would his intentions be then? Attack the rest of the world, America, Britain? 

I suppose it isn't surprising really that our politicians would ascribe dubious motives to anyone producing WMD, or with a desire to produce them, after all by what standards should we judge others other than by our own? 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1321019,00.html

Hewlett Apologizes for Iraq.

Here it is, ""I certainly want to say that all of us, from the PM down, all of us who were involved in making an incredibly difficult decision are very sorry and do apologise for the fact that that information was wrong, but I don't think we were wrong to go in."

What's she apologizing for if she didn't think we were wrong to go in? Isn't that somewhat the point? If we were right to go in then no apology is required. It's just that little problem that none of the moral or ethical issues or the physical facts support such a view. 

The invasion of Iraq was a defining moment in history, it changed everything. It was the politics of might and power over reason, justice, law and morality. 

It was a pig in a poke, the price for which we are all going to be paying for a very long time to come.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1322815,00.html

 

Keith Lindsay-Cameron 2004

Please submit comments and suggestions to: