Daily Archives: April 3, 2004

Liars and Murderers

LONDON (AFP) – Prime Minister Tony Blair came under fresh pressure over the way he took Britain to war on Iraq, after US Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged key intelligence no longer appeared “solid”.

Powell’s comments Friday referred to pre-war information he gave the United Nations on Iraq’s mobile biological weapons laboratories to justify the military campaign last year led by the United States and staunchly backed by Blair.

And so, right on schedule it all begins to unravel.

Not that the perps’ pack of lies wasn’t obvious from the start. It’s that the liars would cave so publically — and so casually.

With more to come.

Powell’s remarks prompted calls from British critics of the war for Blair’s government to explain whether claims it had made about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in pre-war debate were also from the same source.

It’s The Judy Miller Show !

The failure to find such weapons in Iraq following the country’s occupation has proved an embarrassment for both Washington and London.

Can they be embarrassed really? I doubt it.

Blair had been even more clear-cut than US President George W. Bush in citing Saddam Hussein’s refusal to give up his alleged pursuit of banned weapons as the main reason for taking the nation to war.

Oh yes. We all recall how Blair claimed Saddam had the capability of launching a nuclear strike against the UK in 45 minutes, don’t we?

Doug Henderson, a deputy with Blair’s ruling Labour party and a former junior defence and Foreign Office minister, called for the government to make a statement to parliament.

“If the American secretary of state has misled the people of the United States, it also appears that we have been misled in this country by the same faulty intelligence,” Henderson said.

“The record should be put straight. Those who are responsible should apologize to those who have lost loved ones because of this dreadful error of judgment and a statement should be made to parliament.”

What “faulty intelligence”? The intelligency community was quite clear in its findings, as Richard Clarke has been at pains to point out. Sadddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

But Bush didn’t want to hear that — and neither did the Poodle.

Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for Britain smaller opposition Liberal Democrats, said Powell’s comments were further evidence that the intelligence case for the war was “unravelling”.

“The cat is out of the bag. The certainty with which Colin Powell lectured the Security Council of the United Nations was overwhelming,” Campbell said.

“Now we have every reason to believe that the information upon which he was relying does not stand up.”

Right bag, wrong cat. The “information” being relied upon was fantasy.

Mike O’Brien, a junior minister in Britain’s Foreign Office, responded to the criticism by saying that the use of pre-war intelligence on Iraq was already being examined in an inquiry ordered by Blair in February.

The review, led by a former head of Britain’s civil service, Lord Robin Butler, is to issue a report before July.

“We have set up the Butler inquiry. That has got the objective of looking at the intelligence received behind the issue of the WMD allegations in relation to Iraq,” O’Brien told the independent Channel 4 News programme.

“When the Butler inquiry reports we will know more about the way in which that intelligence was collected.”

It’s not how it was collected that’s at issue, it’s how it was disregarded.

A separate inquiry headed by senior judge Lord Brian Hutton has already cleared Blair’s government of charges it deliberately exaggerated intelligence on Iraq.

Which only goes to show that any new inquiry is going to do nothing more than repeat the old one.

And so it is with us. Why do we put our trust in liars? Why do we allow them to lie over and over again? Why do we allow the media to be a conduit of lies?

We must love lies. We must hate truth. That’s the only logical conclusion.

And we must love death too.

Why else do we commit murder so brutally and on such a vast scale as the “Shock and Awe” campaign — whose victims we dare not numerically tally?
Why else do we offer the sons and daughters of the lower classes so willingly as cannon fodder — shipping their corpses home under cover, hiding the maimed and wounded in hospitals than none but Cher dare enter?

We are liars and murderers. We are monsters and cowards. We are fully deserving every iota of suffering that will be visited upon us in retribution.

We get what we pay for.