Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Beaumont's bombast

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
johnlilburne



Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 137
Location: Yorkshire

Post Post subject: Beaumont's bombast Reply with quote

I couldn't log in to the forum for whatever reason, so I've just copied it in here - starts from bottom.


No I'm not. So kindly #### off



----- Original Message -----
From: "Garry" [garry@hotmail.com]
Sent: 13/02/2006 18:43
To: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk
Subject: Re: How the British Army's capture of hearts and minds turned sour


Dear Peter Beaumont,

You don't seem prepared to engage seriously. I notice that you evade the
simple question I specifically put to you as to whether you actually
believed Blair's "liberation" justification...Any particular reason for
this?

Garry.

b) since I know that TB regarded it as an issue of liberation

Presumably you base this on the fact that Blair implied or stated it
was an
issue of liberation for him – and you were, and remain convinced?
Despite
all that has come to light of duplicity and manipulations on the
part of his
administration, you hold firm to the liberation theory? Blair never
had any
ulterior motives for backing the US?

c) there never was any wmd I stick to my statement


>From: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk
>To: "Garry"
>Subject: Re: How the British Army's capture of hearts and minds turned sour
>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:14:05 +0000
>
>I'm talkin about the people who took us to war not people like u and me who
>opposed it so stop wasting my time and piss off now like a good boy to your
>chomsky
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Garry" [garry@hotmail.com]
>Sent: 13/02/2006 18:03
>To: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk
>Subject: Re: How the British Army's capture of hearts and minds turned sour
>
>Dear Peter Beaumont,
>
>Thank you for your reply. I have taken up some of the issues raised below.
>
>"Since a) no one seemed to give a shit about the legality and b) since I
>know that TB regarded it as an issue of liberation and c) there never was
>any wmd I stick to my statement"
>
>a) no one seemed to give a shit about the legality.
>
>According to a University of Maryland (PIPA) study into public opinion
>released at the end of 2004, 61% of Bush voters said that “they assumed
>that Bush would not have gone to war if Baghdad did not have WMD and was
>not
>providing support to Al Qaeda”, as journalist Jim Lobe put it.[1]
>
>We may safely presume that the legality of the invasion was of major
>concern
>to these people.
>
>You will note that this only refers to Bush supporters, those one would say
>most likely to support the venture. No need to labour the implications for
>the rest of world opinion then.
>
>
>b) since I know that TB regarded it as an issue of liberation
>
>Presumably you base this on the fact that Blair implied or stated it was an
>issue of liberation for him – and you were, and remain convinced? Despite
>all that has come to light of duplicity and manipulations on the part of
>his
>administration, you hold firm to the liberation theory? Blair never had any
>ulterior motives for backing the US?
>
>c) there never was any wmd I stick to my statement
>
>I’m afraid this one is too cryptic for me. Perhaps you could give some
>more
>detail…
>
>Regards,
>
>Garry.
>
>
>[1] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FJ23Ak01.html
>
>“…Remarkably, asked whether the U.S. should have gone to war with Iraq if
>U.S. intelligence had concluded that Baghdad did not have a WMD program and
>was not providing support to al Qaeda, 58 percent of Bush supporters said
>no, and 61 percent said they assumed that Bush would also not have gone to
>war under those circumstances.
>
>“To support the president and to accept that he took the U.S. to war based
>on mistaken assumptions,” said Kull, “likely creates substantial cognitive
>dissonance and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling
>information about pre-war Iraq.”
>Kull added that this “cognitive dissonance” could also help explain other
>remarkable findings in the survey, particularly with respect to Bush
>supporters’ misperceptions about the president’s own positions…”
>
>
>
>>From: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk
>>To: "Garry"
>>Subject: Re: How the British Army's capture of hearts and minds turned
>>sour
>>Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:34:24 +0000
>>
>>Since a) no one seemed to give a shit about the legality and b) since I
>>know that TB regarded it as an issue of liberation and c) there never was
>>any wmd I stick to my staement
>>
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Garry" [garry@hotmail.com]
>>Sent: 13/02/2006 13:25
>>To: peter.beaumont@observer.co.uk
>>Subject: How the British Army's capture of hearts and minds turned sour
>>
>>
>>
>>Dear Peter Beaumont,
>>
>>Regarding your statement [1] in your Observer article, that British and
>>American troops were sent to Iraq to liberate the Iraqis, I would like to
>>remind you that British and American troops were in fact sent to find and
>>destroy weapons of mass destruction and disarm Saddam Hussein who we were
>>told was a threat to world peace.[2],[3]
>>
>>"Liberation" of the Iraqi people equates to regime change - clearly a case
>>of the crime of aggression - the supreme war crime.
>>
>>In the Downing Street memo of July 23 2002 the attorney general Lord
>>Goldsmith warned that under international law, the desire for regime
>>change
>>was not a legal base for military action.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Garry.
>>
>>
>>[1] "...What is particularly disturbing the level of dehumanisation of the
>>Iraqi people that British and American troops were sent to liberate."
>>
>>[2] "So where are they? In case we forget, distracted by the thought of
>>thousands of dead Iraqi civilians, looted museums and gathering political
>>chaos, the proclaimed purpose of this war, vainly pursued by Britain and
>>the
>>US through the United Nations, was to disarm Saddam Hussein and to destroy
>>weapons of mass destruction deemed a menace to the entire world." ('So
>>where
>>are they, Mr Blair?’, leader, Independent on Sunday, April 20, 2003)
>>
>>
>>[3]Andreas Whittam Smith’s May 2003 comments in the Independent:
>>
>>“There was no ambiguity about the reasons for fighting. The only text
>>which
>>matters is the motion the Prime Minister put down in the House of Commons
>>on
>>18 March, just before hostilities began. It asked members of Parliament to
>>support the decision of Her Majesty's Government ‘that the United Kingdom
>>should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons
>>of mass destruction‘.
>>
>>“There was nothing else in the motion other than citations of various
>>United
>>Nations Security Council resolutions. Regime change was not a British war
>>aim.” (Whittam Smith, ‘If the weapons are not found, Blair must quit,’ The
>>Independent, May 19, 2003)
>>

IOPS - The International Organisation For a Participatory Society. Building a society of equals. A self-managing society without classes.
www.iopsociety.org

If not us, who? If not now, when?
Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:24 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> Media Lens Forum All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker