9.7.03
Blair continues blatant backpedalling
Blair continues his shameless backpedalling. Now, we're supposed to believe that Bush and Blair really never expcted to find actual weapons, just programs - that could have been revived in 45 minutes, using that single centrifuge and that uranium from Niger that never existed in the first place:
But what do you expect from someone who can so shamelessly rewrite history whenever it pleases him - even history which he was intimately involved in making:
But, on the other hand, why should Bush and Blair really give a shit about what they say and do, as long as British and American citizens keep letting them get away with everthing?
Blair continues his shameless backpedalling. Now, we're supposed to believe that Bush and Blair really never expcted to find actual weapons, just programs - that could have been revived in 45 minutes, using that single centrifuge and that uranium from Niger that never existed in the first place:
Although Downing Street later pointed out that Mr Blair had referred to weapons programmes before, the shift in emphasis may betray a growing belief in government circles that Saddam had dismantled or broken up the weapons before the coalition invasion.His statements make one wonder if he hasn't started dealing from a deck that's a few cards short:
Appearing before a Commons committee, Mr Blair denied he had misled parliament in its presentation of its case against Iraq and said he stood by the evidence detailing alleged nuclear, biological and weapons programmes in the government's September dossier.Uh, hello, Tony? Inspectors and the US army have found nothing so far. Has that registered? Your American "friends" are even backing away from you and your bullshit claims.
"I'm afraid that in that regard, for me the jury is not out. It's not out at all," he told the Commons liaison committee.
But what do you expect from someone who can so shamelessly rewrite history whenever it pleases him - even history which he was intimately involved in making:
"The thesis that having spent years obstructing the inspectors, having finally in December 1998 driven them out of the country because they couldn't do their work any more, he then voluntarily decided to destroy all his programmes but not tell anyone about it [...] now that strikes me as inherently implausible," he told the MPs.The problem with this statement is that Saddam didn't "drive" the inspectors out of the country in December 1998. As I recall, it was the aerial bombardment campaign that Blair and his under-fire buddy Clinton decided to launch that did the trick. Richard Butler ordered the inspectors out for safety reasons; Saddam did no driving at this point. It is clear that lying, distorting, and revising history means nothing to Blair - why should Iraq's WMD now be any different?
But, on the other hand, why should Bush and Blair really give a shit about what they say and do, as long as British and American citizens keep letting them get away with everthing?
