Blair - Bush Spin goes into overdrive

Hobart

I got some highlighted snippets of the State of the Union address by GWB last night. IMHO it seemed like a very rehersed statement trying to tie in 9/11 - terrorism - Al'Oueda - Iraq. Again IMHO he was totally unbelieveable. Then this morning I read this. I especially like the line about Downing Street said the nature of the Iraqi regime itself meant al-Qaeda operatives could not be in Iraq unless the regime was willing to have them.

Now reading between the lines would it not also be justified in saying that the "nature of the Iraqi regime itself meant that Martians could not be in Iraq unless the regime was willing to have them"

DO these guys honestly believe there own hype? Do You?

Offy

What about this "Downing Street said the nature of the English/American regime itself meant al-Qaeda operatives could not be in England/America unless the regime was willing to have them."

To be honest, Mr Blix highlighted some of my fears relating to Iraq rather than calm them.

I heard Tony Blair this lunchtime(PMQ's) admit that North Korea was next on the Agenda after Sadam had been dealt with.

The next week is going to be very interesting in terms of what convincing evidence, Colin Powell puts before the U.N, regarding, GW Bush's accusations in last nights Sate of the Union.

I'm reserving my opinion untill then.

I will repeat though what I thought earlier in this debate. If Al Qu'aeda were to look for a sympatetic hearing now,the place to look would be with Sadam.
It would be helpfull to the U.S and UK case if they were to provide the world with evidence, that in post 9-11 times that Sadam's regime was harbouring these individuals.
For a mix of that connection plus evidence of what Sadam is hiding in terms of chemicals would be very worrying indeed, and something that would require action.
mm

Offy

The only chemicals Sadam has that are of interest to America are Petrochemicals.

PH01

Watching the BBC news last night it was amazing to see the differences between the interpretion by the British media and the French media of the Blix report.
The French highlighted the need for more time, which the British said that time was nearly up for Iraq. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I didn't know what RTE News were saying as they're usually all over the place.

Originally posted by Offy
The only chemicals Sadam has that are of interest to America are Petrochemicals.

If you re-phrased that with "some of the..." instead of "the only..." it would be more accurate.
mm

Hobbes

They already tried this before saying AQ were in Iraq, and was at the time technically true because they were found in the UN controlled area's.

It has been shown some time ago that AQ are totally against what Saddam is and the only way Saddam would be in the same room as them is if he was torturing them.

But the BS is strong, I can't wait for the next excuse they come up with.

Hobart

But it is not amazing to see the Spin/Dis-information project in full flow. And yes I am assuming that the Al'Queda statement by the spokesperson in Dowing Street was lies, because I would like to see some proof! Similarily how has Bush managed to change the focus from Al'Queda terrorist operations to a war on Iraq, without changing the 'War on Terrorism' message. Does anybody know anybody who have stood up to these guys and said 'Hey. Hang on there. Give me the proof, and I will back you.

Originally by Man
I heard Tony Blair this lunchtime(PMQ's) admit that North Korea was next on the Agenda after Sadam had been dealt with.

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, happens with NK. It won't be the same pushover at all, bearing in mind the proximity of China and Russia!

Hobbes

There won't be a next one if the US/UK go unilateral on this and ignore the UN's rulings.

It would mean the collapse of the UN.

Hobart

Originally posted by Hobbes
There won't be a next one if the US/UK go unilateral on this and ignore the UN's rulings.
It would mean the collapse of the UN.

Sorry, Hobbes, don't understand that statement? If the UN collapses how would that prevent anything??

Again, I am awaiting the fullest presentation from the U.S and the U.K, and in particular what Colin Powell has to say to the U.N.

If any of this full presentation, can be shown here to be dis-information, I would be interested in the facts to counter Mr Powells information when it appears.

Similarily how has Bush managed to change the focus from Al'Queda terrorist operations to a war on Iraq, without changing the 'War on Terrorism' message. Does anybody know anybody who have stood up to these guys and said 'Hey. Hang on there. Give me the proof, and I will back you.

Bush's speech last night (and I para phrase) stated that the real enemies of Iraq were not those that surround it but those that rule it...
He went on to state that the world was being threatened by rogue states and their "terrorist allies".
He also stated that Sadam was engaging in the mass movement of evidence that could be of use to the U.N and that this was in direct contravention of security council directives.

Thats broad language which will rely on evidence to back it up.
Assuming( and thats all we can do at present ) that Al Qu'eda are in Iraq , and remembering, that Sadam wasn't exactly saddened by 9-11, then if the U.S and the U.K can come up with tangeable evidence that there is a link between Osama and co and Sadam, then there is a clear and present danger that must be dealt with.

As I say, I'll reserve my opinion on this untill some more evidence, is put before us.
mm

Hobart

Originally by Man
If any of this full presentation, can be shown here to be dis-information, I would be interested in the facts to counter Mr Powells information when it appears.

Me too. I hear that he is to release some info to the UN next week (I thnk).

Originally by Man
Bush's speech last night (and I para phrase) stated that the real enemies of Iraq were not those that surround it but those that rule it...

Again "Bush Said" This does not make it true!

Originally by Man
He went on to state that the world was being threatened by rogue states and their "terrorist allies".He also stated that Sadam was engaging in the mass movement of evidence that could be of use to the U.N and that this was in direct contravention of security council directives.

Again he said and he said. Look AFAIK the US has spy satelites looking directly at various suspect areas of Iraq. It also, in conjunction with the UN, patrols 2/3rd (I think) of the air space of Iraq. SO. If they Iraqi's where moving these WMD's all over the place then surely by now we would have hours upon hours of boring footage showin Scud missle carriers and the like travesing acroos the desert and descending into thier respective bunkers. Would they not also pass this info onto the UN inspectors for thier information?

Originally by Man
Assuming( and thats all we can do at present ) that Al Qu'eda are in Iraq

No. Lets Assune that they are not in Iraq. That is the whole point of this Thread. The misinformation from the various stake holders in this situation. I agree with you that if Al'Queda are there, and are being accomadated by SH, well yes the west should act. But lets assume that they are NOT there until it is pooven otherwise.

shotamoose

Bush and Blair seem to be becoming increasingly desperate. I don't think there's any evidence of cooperation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in the past, but the ONE thing most likely to bring them together would be an American invasion of Iraq.

Secondly, if the US/UK are so concerned about WMD falling into the hands of terrorists (and I certainly am) shouldn't they be more worried about weapons originating in the former soviet states? Or Pakistan? The best way to uncover and dispose of WMD in Iraq is through a long, exhaustive and comprehensive inspections regime. I'm constantly surprised at how many people have conceded the point that the natural step if you discover WMD in Iraq is to invade the place - surely that will only encourage this mad dictator to use the damn things? It leads me to suspect that the point of the new UN resolution was not to uncover weapons but to uncover non-cooperation and use that as a trigger for war.

Thirdly, does anyone think the conquering of Iraq by the US would be good for internal stability of Saudi Arabia and Iran? Or would it strengthen the support of anti-American fundamentalists in those countries, perhaps leading the US to class them as 'rogue states' deserving of strict correction?

Fourthly, to those worried that one of the consequences of this whole affair will be that the UN is seriously undermined as a world authority. That is exactly the point, in fact it's a major part of US Republican foreign policy. No doubt it will be pointed out that sometimes the UN doesn't need anyone else's help in undermining its authority. That's not the point at all.

Originally posted by Hobart
Me too. I hear that he is to release some info to the UN next week (I thnk).

Again "Bush Said" This does not make it true!

Again he said and he said. Look AFAIK the US has spy satelites looking directly at various suspect areas of Iraq. It also, in conjunction with the UN, patrols 2/3rd (I think) of the air space of Iraq. SO. If they Iraqi's where moving these WMD's all over the place then surely by now we would have hours upon hours of boring footage showin Scud missle carriers and the like travesing acroos the desert and descending into thier respective bunkers. Would they not also pass this info onto the UN inspectors for thier information?

No. Lets Assune that they are not in Iraq. That is the whole point of this Thread. The misinformation from the various stake holders in this situation. I agree with you that if Al'Queda are there, and are being accomadated by SH, well yes the west should act. But lets assume that they are NOT there until it is pooven otherwise.

I think the point of my post was, yeah, Bush said, but the onus is on the U.S and the U.K to provide the evidence for what Bush said.
Bush also said ( ) that some of this evidence would be laid in front of the U.N by Colin Powell.
And regarding:

No. Lets Assune that they are not in Iraq.

Tony Blair at PMQ's today, referred to, what he(Tony) said to a commons committee ( foreign affairs select committee, I think ) the other day, that there was evidence that, Al'Quaeda had connections in Iraq ie they met/knew idividuals there.
But he was in his own words choosing his language carefully, so as not to suggest that it was Sadam they were meeting.

Thats suffecient for me to assume that AlQ'ueda are in some shape or form present in Iraq. The onus on the U.S and the U.K is to present evidence as to how deep a connection, there is.

However, given that, the Bush war on terrorism is a war on AlQu'aeda,it would be worrying for them to realise that, the current Iraqi regime are not going to crack down on any AlQu'aeda presence there...and worse still, it would be valid on their part to assume that, if they are there, that Sadam would facilitate them.
The problem for the U.S is coming up with the goods so to speak to convince the rest of the world in general that there is a threat there...or to act unilaterally.
But for them, that quandry, brings us back to the "your damned, if you do...and you're damned if you don't..." situation again.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
And yes I am assuming that the Al'Queda statement by the spokesperson in Dowing Street was lies, because I would like to see some proof!

Didnt you listen to Georgie? One major point in his speech was essentially about "accept now, proof later". In other words....the world should stop asking for proof, do what they're told, and proof will be supplied at a later date.

So stop asking...you'll get the proof about the bad people....after you've signed on board and all the bad is already dealt with.

jc

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Didnt you listen to Georgie? One major point in his speech was essentially about "accept now, proof later". In other words....the world should stop asking for proof, do what they're told, and proof will be supplied at a later date.

I presume you are taking the p**s.

bonkey

He did say this, and therefore this is clearly what he wants us to do.

As to agreeing with it....yes, I am most definitely extracting urine.

jc