Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

[BOBDN]

I figured while there are so many posts from across the pond I'd add one from the UK.

Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

"Tony Blair led Britain to war against Iraq despite intelligence chiefs' warnings it could increase the risk of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it has emerged."

One of those warnings against invading Iraq CkG claims never happened.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I figured while there are so many posts from across the pond I'd add one from the UK.

Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

"Tony Blair led Britain to war against Iraq despite intelligence chiefs' warnings it could increase the risk of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it has emerged."

One of those warnings against invading Iraq CkG claims never happened.

Where did he say that?

 

[VioletAura]

What can you expect from Bush's lapdog.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Tabb

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I figured while there are so many posts from across the pond I'd add one from the UK.

Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

"Tony Blair led Britain to war against Iraq despite intelligence chiefs' warnings it could increase the risk of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it has emerged."

One of those warnings against invading Iraq CkG claims never happened.

Where did he say that?

Here

"09/11/2003 6:09 PM (NEW!)



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BOBDN

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: BOBDN

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: Zebo

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: XZeroII
OMG! A human being made a mistake! FLOG HIM!

I won't even try to make a reply to this because everyone knows you spend all day simply reading liberal news and bashing Bush. Rational thoughts are rejected by your brain before they can even begin to materialize. All you can do is parrot what your liberal news stories are saying and ignore everything else.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ahh the intractable flag-waving loyalty of repunks, how nice. It it was'nt deviod of any substance it might be laudable. Then you adhom the messenger. I guess all thats left is to muddy the waters with a Clinton reference to make you a complete loudmouth incomprehensible asshole devoid of a substantive post. zKeep trying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm ignoring every post which contains the words "Bush bashing" or words to that effect from now on. Once that cry is uttered in defence of Bush you can be sure all mental activity has ceased in the mind of the person who uttered it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As will I with all posts that contain "YABA" in them.

You are no better than anyone else here - especially when it comes to ignorant posts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions about Iraq, Bush, politics - YOURS aren't "better", "more informed", or "open minded" than anyone else's. To claim that YOUR opinions are such, is quite arrogant and ignorant - something you seem to claim "the other guy" does. Check yourself.

CkG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I never suggested I was any better than anyone else. Where would you get such an idea?

As for better informed or whatever so far the folks who have opposed Bush rather than defend him have been right about everything.


Unnecessary invasion based on false evidence.

No WMD.

No terrorist threat.

No nuclear material.

Bush's war will cost us hundreds of billions.

Bush's war will exacerbate the terrorist threat.

The US can't handle the job without the UN and NATO.

What have you and Bush been right about? "Bring it on?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Show me one argument that you had against the war - BEFORE it happened that has now been PROVEN wrong. The ones you list weren't arguments BEFORE the war

This should be interesting

CkG

-------------------------
>(')____, >(')____, >(')____, >(')____, >(') ____,
. (` =~~/ .. (` =~~/ ... (` =~~/ ... (` =~~/ ... (` =~~/
All the quacking Ducks are lining up...READY...AIM...

"The only rock I know that stays steady, the only institution I know that works, is the family"- Lee Iacocca"

 

[syzygy]

the allegation of a 'sexed up' dossier had been tossed. soooo surprising.

The new report cleared Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, "or anybody else", of "sexing up"
the Iraq dossier as claimed in a BBC report.

given how al-qaeda has a penchant for imagining affronts to the honor of the islamic world, an actual invasion
would make no difference. al-qaeda is pathologically deluded. why would anyone impart rational motives to their
murderous nature ?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: syzygy
the allegation of a 'sexed up' dossier had been tossed. soooo surprising.

The new report cleared Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, "or anybody else", of "sexing up"
the Iraq dossier as claimed in a BBC report.

given how al-qaeda has a penchant for imagining affronts to the honor of the islamic world, an actual invasion
would make no difference. al-qaeda is pathologically deluded. why would anyone impart rational motives to their
murderous nature ?

I have another question. Why would anyone unnecessarily attack a Muslim country to provide Al Qaeda with a generation of new recruits?

 

[VioletAura]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: syzygy
the allegation of a 'sexed up' dossier had been tossed. soooo surprising.

The new report cleared Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, "or anybody else", of "sexing up"
the Iraq dossier as claimed in a BBC report.

given how al-qaeda has a penchant for imagining affronts to the honor of the islamic world, an actual invasion
would make no difference. al-qaeda is pathologically deluded. why would anyone impart rational motives to their
murderous nature ?

I have another question. Why would anyone unnecessarily attack a Muslim country to provide Al Qaeda with a generation of new recruits?

To keep the stupid color coded threat level thing in the orange zone forever.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: BOBDN
I figured while there are so many posts from across the pond I'd add one from the UK.

Blair 'overrode terror warnings'

"Tony Blair led Britain to war against Iraq despite intelligence chiefs' warnings it could increase the risk of terrorists getting weapons of mass destruction, it has emerged."

One of those warnings against invading Iraq CkG claims never happened.

And has it happened?
I thought you said in your mini-rant that there was "No terrorist threat."

You can't play both sides of the ball at the same time. Either there WAS a terrorist threat or there wasn't. If there was - then you can play the "exacerbate the terrorist threat" game. Oh and how can you use the "No WMD" accusation if you just linked an article that claims that there might have been "danger" of WMDs going to terrorists if we attacked?

Nice try though.

CkG