chiaThePet
Posts: 2694
Joined: 2/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: LadyEllen
Today's revelations; http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSGEE5AP1L2
The evidence builds.
E
Begin Article Quote
George W. Bush and Tony Blair APPEARED to have "converged" on regime change in Iraq after talks at the U.S. president's Texas ranch in April 2002, a former British ambassador to Washington said on Thursday.
Christopher Meyer, ambassador to the United States between 1997 and 2003, said PRIVATE ONE-TO-ONE talks between Bush and the then British Prime Minister SEEMED to mark an important point on the route to the March 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
"I know what the Cabinet Office says were the results of the meeting BUT TO THIS DAY I AM NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR what degree of convergence was, if you like, signed in blood at the Crawford ranch," Meyer told a British inquiry into the Iraq war.
Meyer said comments that Blair made after the Texas meeting SEEMED to signal that his views on whether to overthrow Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had moved towards Bush's stand.
"There are clues in the speech that Tony Blair gave the next day ... To the best of my knowledge, I MAY BE WRONG, this was the first time that Tony Blair had said in public 'regime change'," Meyer said.
"What he was trying to do was to draw the lessons of 9/11 and apply them to the situation in Iraq which led -- I THINK not inadvertently but deliberately -- to a conflation of the threat posed by Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein."
Speaking to the inquiry in London on its third day, Meyer said: "When I heard that speech, I THOUGHT that this represents a tightening of the UK/U.S. alliance and a degree of convergence on the danger that Saddam Hussein presented."
Some U.S. officials had argued that there were possible links between Saddam and al Qaeda, which was blamed for masterminding the 2001 attacks on the United States. However, these suggestions HAVE SINCE BEEN discredited.
End Article Quote
I, like many others in the beginning of the Iraq War felt we were doing the right thing for the right reason.
Emotions were running high after witnessing the attacks on our fellow citizens, and whether blindly or
otherwise convinced, we stood behind our government's lead and supported their decisions. Alas, we
have since learned, that beyond removing a tyrant from his pedestal in the town square, our efforts to
bring justice to those whom did us harm, found us misinformed, misguided and mistaken about some,
if not all the reasons we entered in. We do not forget however, there exists to this very minute, a real
threat to our safety and well being by those whom wish us harm.
That said, as I read this article, should I be sitting in a court room with this testimony leveled against me,
my guilt or innocence riding on such, following the language, I would rise to my feet, stare my accusers
square in the face and shout, "OBJECTION'. I shall not be convicted by conjecture nor personal thoughts.
I see no evidence in this testimony, though someone appears to be attempting a royal mount of sorts.
I am no fan of the Iraq war or it's continuing fallout. Nor am I a fan of kangaroo courts bloating self satisfaction.
We already know that which has been discredited, must we simply discredit such from every possible angle?
Now would somebody pass the candied yams, please.
chia* (the pet)
_____________________________
Love is a many splendid sting.
You can stick me in the corner, but I'll probably just end up coloring on the walls.
|
RE: The new Iraq Enquiry - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread