h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Blair bet his soul on it, apparently - that's what he told church leaders who spoke to him about the war... My guess is he's just deluded, not evil, but we don't know.

Are they blaming it on UK intelligence? Haven't watched the news since... Tuesday, so I've been out of it. That's ridiculous!

Intriguling

Check out the House Of Commons Foreign Affairs Committe Report on The Decision to go to War in Iraq. The first sentance of it reads "We conclude that it appears likely that there was only limited access to reliable human itelligence in Iraq and that as a consequence the United Kingdom may have been heavilly reliant on US intelligence, on defectors and on exiles with an agenda of their own."

http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/foreign_affairs_committee.cfm

So no one's intelligence was right? It seems obvious to me that the UK intelligence dossier was publised to justify the decision to war, hence its a piece of persuasive writing rather than a dry dossier of facts. Another quote from the Foriegn Affairs Committe:

"the language used inthe September dossier was in places more assertive than that traditionally used in intelligence documents"

Remember why the dossiers were published - because the UK public needed convincing that this was a 'just war.' Its clear that the threat was exaggerated to win over public opinion. The most serious threats - the '45 minutes to launch WMD' claim and the 'Saddam's Nuclear Programme' have since been proved at best flimsy and at worst scaremongering lies.

Now, considering Rumsfelds recent comment:

"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit" of weapons of mass destruction, Rumsfeld told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light -- through the prism of our experience on 9-11."

We have shifting sands regarding the reasoning behind and the rationality of the war. So there weren't any WMDs - or even if there were Saddam 'probably destroyed them before the war' EXACTLY AS THEY ORDERED HIM TOO!

So far hundreds of soldiers from the UK and US are dead. Iraq civilian body count is put at several thousand. Iraq is still largely without basic amenities like water and electricity and it seems it will be several years before the American and British armies are ready / able to leave. Whatever the objectives of the war were, we desperatly need some objectives for the peace that US/UK out of Iraq as soon as possible.

"Are they blaming it on UK intelligence?"

Anything to avoid taking responsibility for their evil acts.

Hi, Purplejenny, talk about the stating of the bleeding obvious! The 'great unwashed' may be shocked - but more fool them, it's just a terrible pity that the consequences of 'language more assertive than usual in intelligence reports' were so terrible!

Amazing. Bush spends some time with elephants and not one 'Dumb & Dumbo' comment in the papers. Apparently he requested 15 mins with the pachyderms, and only 13 with the leader of the region. He only left after his team promised to get a him a rabbit to take home, which lead to a further miss-understanding.
"Guys" with a tear in his eye "You must really love me to promise to take back an entire country to the US of A."
"Er, no Mr.President. We said 'Angora' not 'Angola'."

ROTFLMFAO! "Angora" tee hee...

"an entire country"

That reminds me of one of Dubya's infamous quotes. He once referred to Africa as "a country". At the same time, he didn't know the names of the leaders of India and Pakistan.

The thing that still defies explanation, after all these years, is exactly why Americans allowed such a seeming imbecile to seize the world's most powerful job.

Sure, he's a constant source of amusement. But it's now gone beyond a joke.

Is he an imbecile, or is he as cunning as a rat? Check out this URL!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33441
It's scary and interesting, and it's about how Bush wants to shoot down planes from 'rogue nations' and submit them to weapons inspections!

Incredible. Quite aside from Bush's delusions of omnipotence and belief that Americans, alone, have the right to possess these weapons and the arrogant belief that they have the ability to re-write morality on a daily basis. Has it ever occured to Bush, or anyone near him, what might happen if you shoot down a plane that's carrying WMDS?

Clue: It starts with A - ends with N - and has RMAGEDDO in the middle.

I'll tell you why they let him take the world's most powerful job.

"It doesn't matter if he's stupid, just so long as he has clever advisors."
Yes, people actually say that.

Did you know that they're not really electing their government in the USA, ther're electing someone who'll appoint their government? Every day I find a new reason to be glad I don't live in the USA.

Quite right! Of course it goes without saying that Dubya wasn't even elected. No-one in the administration has the approval of the electorate. Is that the kind of "democracy" they arrogantly want to inflict on the rest of the world?

What hypocrisy!

What will happen in 2004? "President for Life' Dubya? After all he *has* to stay in power during 'war time', the stability of the US of A depends on it...

Bush is quite capable of enacting a new law that appoints himself president for life and the Bush family as a hereditary monarchy. All it takes is a few well placed lies, designed to frighten the public into accepting it. Bush has proven that he's quite capable of that. Perhaps another September 11th will drive the point home. Perhaps plans are afoot at CIA headquarters.

I'll be voting against him. Everyone I know will be, even my conservative parents.

Oh come on, a heriditary monarchy? With Bush? Gimme a break. Every American I know would laugh their @ss off at that. Never in a million years.

"Never in a million years."

If, before November 2000, I had suggested the scenario of a presidential candidate losing the election and then cheating his way into the white house with the help of vote-counting trickery and a supreme court decision - you would probably have said "Never in a million years".

If, before 2003, I had suggested the scenario of a US president lying to the entire world in order to get vindication to invade and occupy a sovereign nation - you would probably have said "Never in a million years".

I hope you are correct, JEllen!

We were very unlucky that Bush won the electoral vote. Unfortunately, that's the one that counnts, not the overall vote. Trickery in voting does not surprise me. Warmongering presidents do not surprise me either. But if Bush ever tried to become a "permanent" President, he would get his butt impeached so fast his head would spin. I doubt he'll win next time - I'm certainly voting against him.