Smoking gun emails reveal Blair's 'deal in blood' with George Bush over Iraq war

[poncho]

A bombshell White House memo has revealed for the first time details of the ‘deal in blood’ forged by Tony Blair and George Bush over the Iraq War.

The sensational leak shows that Blair had given an unqualified pledge to sign up to the conflict a year before the invasion started.

It flies in the face of the Prime Minister’s public claims at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution to the crisis.

He told voters: ‘We’re not proposing military action’ – in direct contrast to what the secret email now reveals.

Continue . . . http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sh-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html

 

[carpro]

"The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal."

Hmmm......

Curious. Wonder where she got it????

 

[poncho]

"The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to reveal."

Hmmm......

Curious. Wonder where she got it????

I'm wondering how this is going to effect the investigation. Will the republicans try to sweep Hillary's misadventures under the rug if they think her emails may have evidence that could incriminate them also?

 

[carpro]

I'm wondering how this is going to effect the investigation. Will the republicans try to sweep Hillary's misadventures under the rug if they think her emails may have evidence that could incriminate them also?

Her misadventures are going to be swept under the rug anyhow. Obama has already made sure of that. This email doesn't hurt republicans enough to matter.

 

[poncho]

Her misadventures are going to be swept under the rug anyhow. Obama has already made sure of that. This email doesn't hurt republicans enough to matter.

You're probably right. Americans don't seem to mind having crooks and criminals in government so long as they're on "their" team.

 

[poncho]

Families' fury over Blair's Iraq War lie:

Families of troops killed in Iraq last night reacted with fury to revelations that Tony Blair supported the US over the 2003 war a year before the first bombs fell.

A leaked White House memo from March 2002 tells George Bush that ‘Blair will be with us’ a full 12 months ahead of the conflict.

Relatives of those who died in action last night hit out at the ‘treachery’ and ‘deceit’ used by the former PM – who had told voters at the time that he was seeking a diplomatic solution with Baghdad.

And politicians said the bombshell email now proves that Blair had made up his mind to support the US in the war ‘come what may’ and that it is now ‘game, set and match’ in the case against the former Labour leader.

There was also renewed speculation that Blair could one day face legal retribution for taking Britain to war alongside the US on a false premise.

Former shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the classified memo from US Secretary of State Colin Powell was a ‘smoking gun’ that proved Blair had lied about his intentions over the disastrous conflict in Iraq.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-Bush-12-months-conflict.html#ixzz3p5xo2TR7

 

[Revmitchell]

So why is this a problem?

 

[poncho]

So why is this a problem?

From what I understand there are some Brits that feel that having their children die in lie began wars is wrong. It's pretty much routine business as usual here in the US now but apparently that particular custom hasn't gained the same acceptance over there yet.

Some people are just funny like that I guess.

 

[pwarbi]

Speaking as somebody from the UK, the fact that Blair decided to go to war when he told us he wanted a diplomatic process comes as no surprise. The problem is that at the time, we weren't opposed to military action as with what was evolving, and what the government at the time was telling us, we would have voted to go to war if we was given the chance.

The main problem now is that half of what we was led to believe at the time turned out not to be true.

Then again, 'POLITICIANS LIE TO GET THEIR OWN WAY'...isn't exactly breaking news is it?

 

[carpro]

Much ado about nothing. Hardly a "smoking gun".

The memo clearly states Blair's support on Iraq is conditional.

"On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."

Nothing wrong with that kind of qualified support at all. Kudos to Blair and the British.

 

[Revmitchell]

From what I understand there are some Brits that feel that having their children die in lie began wars is wrong. It's pretty much routine business as usual here in the US now but apparently that particular custom hasn't gained the same acceptance over there yet.

Some people are just funny like that I guess.

Uh what lie?

 

[pwarbi]

Much ado about nothing. Hardly a "smoking gun".

The memo clearly states Blair's support on Iraq is conditional.

"On Iraq, Blair will be with us should military operations be necessary."

Nothing wrong with that kind of qualified support at all. Kudos to Blair and the British.

Like I said I think for us Brits, the problem was with the lies we were told from our own government at the time, simply for us to get behind the military action. We was basically told we had no other options, but since we are discovering now that wasn't actually the case.

 

[Revmitchell]

Like I said I think for us Brits, the problem was with the lies we were told from our own government at the time, simply for us to get behind the military action. We was basically told we had no other options, but since we are discovering now that wasn't actually the case.

So...what lies were you told?

 

[poncho]

Like I said I think for us Brits, the problem was with the lies we were told from our own government at the time, simply for us to get behind the military action. We was basically told we had no other options, but since we are discovering now that wasn't actually the case.

Uh what lie?

See post #5 and say "conspiracy theory, there were no lies" out loud 75 times.

 

[Revmitchell]

See post #5 and say "conspiracy theory, there were no lies" out loud 75 times.

Wait a minute, what lies are tied to Bush and Bair agreeing together a year in advance. Why was agreeing a problem?

 

[poncho]

Speaking as somebody from the UK, the fact that Blair decided to go to war when he told us he wanted a diplomatic process comes as no surprise. The problem is that at the time, we weren't opposed to military action as with what was evolving, and what the government at the time was telling us, we would have voted to go to war if we was given the chance.

The main problem now is that half of what we was led to believe at the time turned out not to be true.

Then again, 'POLITICIANS LIE TO GET THEIR OWN WAY'...isn't exactly breaking news is it?

I don't know how you guys approach politics over there but over here we have this mental block called "party loyalty", if the mass of evidence goes against the party line we just block it out of our minds.

It's probably the biggest reason our politicians never get held accountable no matter how egregious their actions may have been.

 

[poncho]

Wait a minute, what lies are tied to Bush and Bair agreeing together a year in advance. Why was agreeing a problem?

Agreeing wasn't the problem. Intentionally lying to the public in order to initiate the "Wolfowitz Doctrine" was the problem. The other problem as I just explained to pwarbi is the mental block known as "party loyalty" some of us Americans suffer from.

 

[Revmitchell]

Agreeing wasn't the problem. Intentionally lying to the public in order to initiate the "Wolfowitz doctrine" was the problem. The other problem as I just explained to pwarbi is the mental block known as "party loyalty" some of us Americans suffer from.

Wait, was the agreement not what the op was about?

 

[poncho]

Wait, was the agreement not what the op was about?

Not to my mind but I understand why you'd like to focus exclusively on this small portion of evidence in order to maintain the republican argument "there were no lies about Iraq" as it depends on your ability to exclude all the other evidence that has come out since then that makes a pretty solid case against that argument.

This is just one more piece of evidence to add to the mass of evidence already out there that makes the "there were no lies about Iraq" argument look mighty weak and partisan.

It's nothing to worry about really Bush and/or Blair like most politicians would have to murder someone on live national television with millions of people viewing before they would be prosecuted for a crime and even then they'd probably "beat the rap".

The media would go into overdrive spinning and justifying. The republicans would call it a political "witch hunt" and a "conspiracy theory" and the 6 conglomerated interconnected corporate media networks would loop it and debate every possible angle and demonize the "deniers" over and over until we doubted our own eyes and intuition.

Like they did with 9/11 and all the resultant military adventures to expand Washington and Wall Street's global empire since.

 

[Revmitchell]

Not to my mind

Oh, ok then show me from the op that they lied. I missed that.