!!!!!!! Live feed ....Iraq war inquiry !!!!!!!

Iran...Iran...Iran.... What the F***..... !

Yep ,,,this is right in your face ,,,let shift blame,,,,

We are talking about Iraq and he is talking about Iran...the goverment is controlling this...

Wow ...what snakes they are!

I hope questions are asked about Dr Kelly,,,i wonder what he will say !!!!!!

Could the Puppet Master be a little angry, by the inquiry being beamed around the world?

Can one watch it?

Me thinks...Tony is getting irritated...

[link to www.iraqinquiry.org.uk]

[link to www.telegraph.co.uk]

this guy is about to break totally the fuk down and start bawling because the people don't appreciate his hard work at trying to keep them SAFE...

he wants an atta-boy and the MP's want his azzzz barbequed!

11.43 LF: quality of intel was about shared assumption – forward stated “without doubt” – was this wise? TB: I did believe it. JIC stated ‘clear’ – this would have the same impact. Now (with hindsight), I would have published JIC reports.

11.39 LF: Were you concerned that intel was getting exaggerated in the media? TB: Issues were considered dull at the time. Assumed greater importance later on. Doubts you would have found anyone who believed Saddam did not have WMD.

11.36 LF: Specifics of intel more important? TB: More intel March to Sept 2002. LF: Dossier. Short range specificity lost? Yes. TB: Plays down 45 minute issue in parliamentary qns etc. LF: Did you understand the difference between battlefield weapons vs missiles? TB: Did not pay much attention to this.

11.30 MG: Did you feel WMD/terror threat was towards UK? Yes. LF: Follows up. Iran etc nuclear issue greater than Iraq? TB: You start with those who had used WMD and were in breach.

11.26 TB: Would have required quite strong evidence in the other way to disprove the threat. MG: Links about Saddam and Al Q? My fear is that repressive or failed states become porous. Did not have 9-11/Saddam linkage proof. Still believes in threat today.

Thanks Moog

He is such a slimy bastard.

Hope he gets tried at The Hague.

11:52

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
This is the ultimate Tony Blair defence: I had to rely on my judgement
Friday January 29, 2010 11:52 GlenOglaza
11:51

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Assertions not good enough, higher standard of proof would be required at the UN? Blair: We were sure of our case
Friday January 29, 2010 11:51 GlenOglaza
11:49

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Blair says no-one disputed it at the time. Everyone now has a differenet perception. There were people for & against military action
Friday January 29, 2010 11:49 GlenOglaza
11:48

Twitter
UrsulaErrington:
Protesters outside the iraq inquiry want tony blair arrested for war crimes.
Friday January 29, 2010 11:48 UrsulaErrington
11:48

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
"Group think" Did Balir hear contrary voices, other opinions - or did they all hear what they wanted to hear?
Friday January 29, 2010 11:48 GlenOglaza
11:46

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Blair now saying if there was any possibility of Saddam having WMD he should be stopped - which is NOT THE SAME as saying Saddam had WMD !
Friday January 29, 2010 11:46 GlenOglaza
11:46

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Iraq Survey Group: UN Weapons Inspectors. Blair will say later they proved Saddam DID have materials and personnel to make WMD v quickly
Friday January 29, 2010 11:46 GlenOglaza
11:44

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Blair is saying that he wrote "I believe" it is "beyond doubt" Saddam had WMD - not the same as the INTELLIGENCE said it was beyond doubt
Friday January 29, 2010 11:44 GlenOglaza
11:42

Twitter
GlenOglaza:
Freedman: If intel patchy, sporadic. Why describe it (foreword to dossier) as "beyond doubt"?Blair: I wrote "I believed it was beyond doubt"
[link to news.sky.com]

He didn't listen to Dr Kelly ,,,he shut him up permanently,,,,,,,here he goes again Iran ,,Iran

Thanks AC

lol

Tony says an awful lot of "I think"... Why does he assume to "think" for a whole nation?... Arrogant Twat!

If it was a judgment why didn‘t he listen to Sir Michael Wood (Legal Adviser) and (Legal Secretary to the Law Officers) David Brummell???

Sorry using a dongle...lol...keeps cutting me off..lol

I'm afraid it would be impossible to try him at the hague, for war crimes - war crimes only relate to actions carried out during war, not the descision to go to war.

subz if it was an illegal war and many think it was, would it not be true that the deaths of 10's of thousands amounts to war crimes?

12.06 Freedman moves to diplomacy. Fast forward to meeting with Bush end Jan ‘03 (Camp David?). Was purpose of meeting to convince Bush about second resolution? Yes. 1441 was a strong resolution but unresolved issue was because some countries wanted to come back for another res to authorise military action. Maintains this was politically desirable. Bush’s view was that Saddam had been given opportunity and not taken it.

12.01 TB: Discusses difficulty of appearing to be on an irreversible path. Risk of appearance that this was the case. Worry was that people would assume that that had not been decided.

11.58 TB: Nuclear timescale. If he bought in material this would have been shortened. Wasn’t prepared to take risk. Maintains this was a decision I had to take. Could we take that risk? My judgment is you don’t take these risks. MG: did you see intel that was not revealed. TB: can’t think of anything in particular.

11.53 TB: there were opposition claims about not acting fast enough. There were different views and I decided Saddam was a continuing threat and we had to act on it. RL: growing threat? More intel but this turned out to be wrong… Mobile labs were mentioned.

11.48 TB: When you are PM you have to rely on the people who are giving this information. LF: Were you too trusting of some of the material you were getting? It was reasonable for me at the time to say, given what I was being told, that there was this threat. No-one disputed Saddam’s WMD at the time,

You've got no argument from me there. I was strictly talking from a legal standpoint. The descision to go to war isn't covered by war crimes legislation (as far as i'm aware). That's all I meant.

Ok thanks

You've got no argument from me there. I was strictly talking from a legal standpoint. The descision to go to war isn't covered by war crimes legislation (as far as i'm aware). That's all I meant.

Just a quick note from my Blackberry while this old fool drones on.

HAHAHAHA!

You'll NEVER pin anything on me, you imbeciles!

I'm fucking FIREPROOF!!!



Cheers,

Tone.

My question to you Blair is in all the years of been in Iraq why haven’t any WMD ever found?????????????

[link to www.iraqinquirydigest.org]

Error establishing a database connection

stop slapping Tony, he was only trying to keep you and America safe from "the terrorists"...

you do understand that Americans believed Iraq was responsible for 09/11, right????