More Iraq

[Rainbow Moonlight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... ion=justin

It appears from this that a lot was said publicly that was not supported by the known facts before the invasion of Iraq. That must surely suggest that thos ethat suggest alternate motivations for the invasion fo iraq than those pro-offered are mor elikely to be correct.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

oops. Aussie or Boxy you may care to move this to the overseas area. I forgot about it.

[JW.Frogen]

This is the second inquiry in the UK on this issue, imagine being a sitting Prime Minister knowing that what ever decision you take concerning military action it will be subject to inquiry after inquiry for decades and if you are in the Intel community all advice you pass (much of it by the nature of the work informed guess work) will be subject to inquiry after inquiry.

A proscription of appeasement and eventual extinction. (I want an inquiry as to why Churchill did not just negoitate with Hitler and save some lives.)

As to the testimony I laughed out loud, ten days before they got some vauge info Iraq did not have such weapons! Ten days after years of reports saying they did. And so the Prime Minister has to suspend his own judgment (and the purpose he was elected, to exercise it) based on one report that contridicts all the others arriving at the last minute.

I hate to tell you folks that pine for the easy days of gassed Kurds and Saddam, but he is gone and he an't comming back.