Forum

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

to independent re Blair's speech on Iraq war

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> your letters
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: to independent re Blair's speech on Iraq war Reply with quote

RE: leader of March 6, 2004

Why do you take Blair at his word that the events of 9-11 "altered the balance of risk" and convinced him that war in Iraq was necessary for British security?

Two and half months after 9-11 Blair and Chirac said that "incontrovertible evidence" of Iraq's involvement in the 9-11 attacks would have to be provided before they would agree to extending the "war on terror" to Iraq.('Blair and Chirac cool on taking war to Iraq,' Hugo Young and Michael White, The Guardian, November 30, 2001)

In fact, there is little reason to believe that the security of British citizens is much of a concern for Blair at all. He ignored advice from the Intelligence and Security Committee that an attack on Iraq would INCREASE the threat of terrorist attacks on British soil. Should we even need "intelligence" to tell us that launching a war that kills thousands of innocent people would create recruits for the likes of bin-Laden? Fear of terrorism should have make Blair less eager to attack Iraq, not more.

(Independent: Blair's war: PM ignored intelligence advice on Iraq: By Paul Waugh and Kim Sengupta: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=442552)

The evidence suggests that Blair alligned himself with Bush for the same reason that a petty gangster allies with a powerful gangster - to get a piece of the action.

Regards,

Joe Emersberger
Sat Mar 06, 2004 6:24 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Burghard-Henry Lehmann



Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 35
Location: Hemel Hempstead, UK

Post Post subject: Re: to independent re Blair's speech on Iraq war Reply with quote

joe emersberger wrote:
RE: leader of March 6, 2004
[...]The evidence suggests that Blair alligned himself with Bush for the same reason that a petty gangster allies with a powerful gangster - to get a piece of the action.
Regards,
Joe Emersberger


This says it all! Very well put.

Henry
Sat Mar 06, 2004 1:26 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ron F



Joined: 14 Jan 2004
Posts: 38
Location: London, UK

Post Post subject: Nice one, Joe. Reply with quote

Quote:
In fact, there is little reason to believe that the security of British citizens is much of a concern for Blair at all.


Absolutely, and your point that bombing, invading and occupying Iraq was an obvious recruitment boost for dangerous men with beards needs repeating, particularly as the corporate press seem immune to this obvious point.

The warnings Blair received about increasing the terrorist threat have been scandalously ignored. He was told that -

Quote:
The JIC assessed that al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest terrorist threat to Western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq. (p.34)

.............

The JIC assessed that any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, not necessarily al-Qaida. (p.34)

http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/reports/isc/




Needlessly increasing the threat to the nation - sounds like treason to me.
Sat Mar 06, 2004 3:54 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: to independent again Reply with quote

Thanks for the eccouraging remarks guys.

Here is very brief query I put to the Independent. I have put the same simple question to the New York Times, the Toronto Globe and Mail, the Toronto Star. I'm sure I could pose it to almost every mainstream paper around the world and get the reply I've received so far - silence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Kelner (or whoever cares to answer) [I copied others at the "Indy"]:

There have been plenty of articles in your newspaper recently about Haiti, but no mention of the US government's refusal to deport Emmanuel Constant or to return documents relevant to his case unless censored. How do you explain such a glaring omission?

Regards,

Joe Emersberger
Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:54 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CelticMist



Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 25
Location: Canary Islands

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Can we presume that the reply was - silence?
Sat May 15, 2004 1:02 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joe emersberger



Joined: 24 Jan 2004
Posts: 513
Location: Windsor, Onatrio, Canada

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Unfortunately, yes.
Sun May 16, 2004 4:59 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 -> your letters 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