Blair lied - who'd have thunk it?

Coincidentally, I had just read the following on the BBC's news site.:.............

Lord Goldsmith advised Mr Blair on 14 January 2003 that UN Security Council resolution 1441 was not enough on its own to justify force against Iraq.

But on 15 January Mr Blair told MPs that while a second UN resolution was "preferable" there were circumstances in which it was "not necessary" - in the event of the use of an "unreasonable veto" by a Security Council member.

He also told the BBC's Newsnight programme on 6 February 2003 that if a country vetoed a further resolution "unreasonably" then "I would consider action outside of that".

In a written question from the inquiry panel, Lord Goldsmith was asked if he felt those words were "compatible with the advice you had given him".

Lord Goldsmith replied simply "no".".........................


Wonderful isn't it?
Politician lied to further their agenda, ****ing never!!
When he turns up at the inquiry, I hope some canute on the roof drops a fire extinguisher on his head.
How can he have lied?

He thought it was the right thing to do.

He did not know! Which as he was committing the nations resources to a grand over seas expedition I would consider a fairly critical factor.

The man will walk away untouched and without sanction. Its one of those things where getting mad about it for some reason does not help.
FFS GOD told him to smite the unbelievers, honist
And some where this week he'll be giving an after dinner speech that will net him a a few thousand more quid to add to his pile......If you are there God, could you send someone to knock him off please.


Book Reviewer
well at least he bunged the british legion four million pounds , I dont care who you are thats a lot of money to give away .
Let's hope the panel rip into him when he returns for further questioning,

Like I said, let us hope
Not quite the niche in history he and cherie wanted to carve out for themselves is it.
Not quite the niche in history he and cherie wanted to carve out for themselves is it.
You're right.

He had dilusions of being a great and successful Prime Minister with a legacy that'll fill books about his greatness for all mankind. Reality is, history will probably have him down as a new generation of veneer politician who relied on an unproportionate amount of spin and told lies to his country to take them to war. A legacy of promoting a Big brother nanny-state that rewards both extremes of the social spectrum; rich business sycophants and a lazy work-shy under-class reliant of benefit handouts and free money.

Perversely, until his dying breath* he'll still believe what he did was right.

(*-Hopefully next week)


Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Oh dear! More drivel about what bunch of lawyers thought versus what another bunch of lawyers thought.

Instead of dripping about what somebody else thinks why not look at the arguments, all sides, not just the bits you've already made your mind up about.

Why not look at the issues and decide whether you think it was right or wrong.
Blair - or as he is now, King Tony of Africa - needed a setting from which to launch his immense ego onto the whole world. The timing of the war was perfect for him because he knew - that's 'knew' like an epiphany - that the Labour Party was way too small for his needs and therefor he drew from his roots the philosophy that the means justifies the end. The means - like Thatcher before him - was blood and the ends was his bank balance, although Thatchers was a need to hang on to power because that's what she wanted.

Four million to the BL! A pittance to what the Blair-two parasites now draw.

This present lot will do no better as far as scandal goes. There is still smoke around from a fire that will not be put out from almost 2 years ago, a fire that continues to smolder: Andy Coulson, "The first person in history to offer to resign twice for something of which he knew nothing."

(quote by Matthew Norman of the Independent)

Similar threads

Latest Threads