» Monday, July 5, 2004

Butler Report

Asked if Downing Street had received a draft copy of the Butler Report and when it would be published, the PMOS said that the Inquiry team had indicated that they were aiming to present their findings on 14 July. It was therefore premature to start talking about handling arrangements at this stage.

Briefing took place at 15:45 | Search for related news


  1. This is yet another display of new labour/establishment arrogance.The entirely predictable result of this farce of an enquirey is an insult to the people of this country who again are patronised and insulted by yet another cover-up.
    There is only one truth about the whole sorry Iraq affair and that is that either it is a matter of the grossest and most unbelievable incompetence,or that the government’s assertions are a tissue of cynical and deliberate lies.
    Blair you’ve done what you’ve done because you have the power(at present),to ignore all opposition however moral.You have no conscience or you would feel some remorse for those who you have murdered in Iraq.You are a dictator,whose actions should attract the attentions of the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
    And you shame the worthy Name of the One who you claim to follow,Jesus Christ our Lord.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 14 Jul 2004 on 4:00 pm | Link
  2. I feel so frustrated by yet another whitewash, first Hutton then Butler. How can PM Blair get away with it again? It is so obvious to any one with any intelligence at all that:

    1. The wording of the dossier was manipulated (therefore sexed up) to suit Mr Blair’s aims. If not, then why was the dossier going back and forth between Downing Street and JIC via A Campbell, if not to adjust the wording for fullest impact? Why were key phrases left out, why was the 45 minute included without its caveat? How can the PM claim he was not trying to mislead the public? He knew that the 45 minute claim had nothing to do with
    WMD. He also knew that SIS did not consider Sadam a threat unless he was attacked.

    2. The PM cannot really believe the world is a safer place after the war. It is the reverse. Of course we are a bigger target from terrorists now. Also, terrorists have free reign in Iraq which they did not under Sadam and therefore have greater access to weapons and explosives.

    3. Iraq is hardly a safer place after the war and post Sadam. Yes, he was a brutal dictator and Iraq will be better without him, but I am sure Iraqis do not feel safe in their own country now. They are under constant threat of terrorist attacks and instability. Many thousands are not alive today because of the war, many are maimed. Services and infrastructure have been destroyed by the war.

    4. The BBC and David Kelly seem to have been the only victims of the debacle over the dodgy dossier business. This is so obviously unjustified.

    Sorry if I am stating the obvious or repeating what has been said before but I am so angered and frustrated by the whole affair that I have to get it off my chest.

    Comment by Don — 14 Jul 2004 on 8:26 pm | Link
  3. I just pressed the Report It button beside Don’s excellent comments on the Butler Report in error. Please cancel it.

    Comment by Richard Dean — 14 Jul 2004 on 8:39 pm | Link
  4. So the dossier was ‘sexed up’ after all. But of course Butler (by name and butler by nature) could not use such a succinct and accurate phrase, as such language was outside his terms of endearment.

    Comment by Richard Dean — 14 Jul 2004 on 8:42 pm | Link
  5. The Butler report, while very disappointing, is not very surprising.

    The thing that is really iritating me is that Tony Blair is claiming that the world is now a safer place after the attack on Iraq. How stupid does he think we are? This is either a complete insult to the intelligence of the public or a sign that Blair has completely lost touch with reality.

    If Tony Blair really does believe that the world is now a safer place then why is his chancellor announcing that he is investing an extra \xA32 billion in "national security"?

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 14 Jul 2004 on 8:55 pm | Link
  6. I’m obviously a simpleton

    The pre-war weapons inspectors were finding nothing.

    Sadam was safely contained.

    Oil was flowing.

    The country’s infrastructure was in place.

    Food aid was working – with a bit of corruption – but again better than many other hot spots.

    There were human rights violations – but far fewer than many other places in the World.

    Middle East experts warned that the World would be a more dangerous place if Sadam were toppled.

    The UN didn’t want a war.

    If I can easily conclude that only a bloody idiot would go to war why did Tony Blair take such a STUPID decision?

    Seriously folks – what is it that I have missed?

    Comment by Roger Huffadine — 15 Jul 2004 on 4:17 pm | Link
  7. You completely missed the point, that’s what you missed!

    The point is that politicians have no honour, integrity or courage. They are only interested in their own positions – you should know by now that real issues are only important to politicians when they personally have something to gain. Although I respect Charles Kenedy’s stance over the war I still believe it was political opportunism rather than any real-held belief that the invasion was wrong.

    But Tony of course was only interested in himself and his own place in history. George Bush told him that he’d best stay onside with the US or eventually face the consequences of a stricken US economy; and Tony has tried (unsuccessfully) to juggle both the US and Europe. Although Bush will hopefully be kicked out in November (if there isn’t a """terrorism alert""" severe enough to justify postponing it) his likely replacement will offer few crumbs of realistic comfort; I believe the only way he will be able to really win over the country will be to demonstrate he is no establishment stooge by chasing Bush to the ends of the earth for what he has done to the world. Unlikely though that is. But we’ll see.

    But as for Blair; our anachronistic and undemocratic form of government, peopled by cronies and the old school tie crowd, has ensured that by clearing himself of wrongdoing on 4 occasions now (even when that issue wasn’t even addressed by any of the inquiries), his name is effectively clear. The only way I can see real justice ever happening as far as our corrupt and criminal "Prime" Minister (and much of the rest of his upper-class school-chummy government) is concerned is if a highly unlikely reform of government were to take place before he shuffles off his mortal coil. And to the everlasting shame of this country and the detriment of all the principles of democracy, history is written by the "winners" – or in Tony’s case, by the one who lies longest and loudest.

    My only hope now is that Iraq will be free and democratic enough in the future to throw off the hands of the US and confiscate their criminally-gotten gains; maybe then we will get some real evidence of what happened and what didn’t, who did what, why, when and how. Remember that some Nazi war criminals escaped for nigh on 50 years before being brought to justice; it may take that long for Iraq to become democratic in a way the US never envisaged (ie; free of the US), but I’d gladly wait that long to see Blair kicking at the end of a rope.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 15 Jul 2004 on 7:52 pm | Link
  8. So when will Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell be apologising to the BBC and David Kelly’s family for saying that they hadn’t sexed up the dossier?
    They say they accept responsibility for the issues raised by Butler but no-one has owned up and no-one has resigned. The quote "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" (Lord Acton) has never been more apt.

    Isn’t is time we restricted Prime Ministers to two terms to prevent them turning into megalomaniac dictators.

    Comment by Spaceman — 16 Jul 2004 on 11:18 am | Link
  9. I can also guarantee that Bliar (and Bush) wouldn’t have been so keen to rush to war if their own kids were serving in the military. I think that they should; I think that should be a caveat attached to any PM or President’s appointment. I’m sure also that quite so many MPs wouldn’t have voted for war if they had family serving in the military. Anyone know if ANY currently serving MP has close family in the forces? I bet there aren’t many…

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Jul 2004 on 11:34 am | Link
  10. George Stevenson (labour MP for Stoke) has a grandson in the army who has been injured in Iraq. He voted against the war but I don’t think that’s really the point.

    Contrary to what may actually happen, MPs are not elected to represent their own or their families interests. MPs should not be voting based on how it affects their families but on how it affects their constituents. If an MP voted for the war then they should have the decency to attend the funeral of all of their constituents killed in that war and meet all of the soldiers injured in the war. Once the effect of their decision has sunk in then they should be reminded that whatever they have seen is ten times worse for people in Iraq.

    Comment by Uncarved Block — 16 Jul 2004 on 5:38 pm | Link
  11. You’re right, it isn’t really the point – but it’s A point to consider. After all, MPs are SUPPOSED to reflect the wishes of their constituencies, and not toe the party line as they did over the Iraq vote – and of course that was pure self interest. I.e.: if we don’t back Tony, Labours most successful leader blah blah then he may get the boot and then who will lead us into the next election with a realistic chance of winning? Coz then we might lose our jobs…

    Whereas, if more MPs had family serving in the forces, not so many would have been quite so inclined to bend to pressure from the party heavies; and not just in this government but all governments. Our esteemed leadership has over the past 30 years been far too keen to engage in wars and conflicts, having no idea themselves what it means and not having to care too much because servicemen dying in combat is something they don’t have to personally witness. Distance can be a wonderful thing at times.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 16 Jul 2004 on 6:59 pm | Link
  12. The problem with Teflon, as many know, is that nothing sticks to it. The problem with Teflon Tony, as many feel, is that nothing sticks to him.

    In a world that both admires and despises perfection, there’s an awful lot of people getting in line to throw an egg into that particular Teflon pan, burn it to a crisp, and beg for it to stick.

    At this rate, sooner or later, people are going to decide they preferred cast iron, and switch back to a pan that had "something of the night" about it; something that burned reliably when something went obviously wrong.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 19 Jul 2004 on 10:16 am | Link
  13. Dear Don,You said "He also knew that SIS did not consider saddam a threat unless he was attacked" REALLY then what was the super gun for remember!that super gun that could lobe a shell into Israel from Iraq! what was saddam`s intension there!. You say "A bigger target from terriorists now REALLY No one was at war with Iraq when 9/11 happened! It is clear that we were all target`s before as now to attack 9/11 PROVED that. As for number 3 on your list well the same could be said if WE are attacked.At least by going into Iraq it will in TIME make Iraq one less place that they can hide. As to there being no W.M.D.that so many are saying with NO PROOF of that!.I can tell you that Robin Cook,Clair Short,Lynn Jones are even saying they don`t know.Get a copy of Hansard if you don`t believe it`s all in there.All three have said "There are no W.M.D.well not many anyway" They are telling you they DON`T even KNOW.

    Comment by george dutton — 10 Aug 2004 on 1:27 pm | Link
  14. If Iraq lobbed shells at Israel, what business is that of ours?!?! Israel has the support of the good ol’ US of A, I’m sure they don’t need us to stick up for them as well.

    Also, there is a lot of evidence that 9/11 was a put up job – and before you say "that could never happen", remember Pearl Harbour; remember the Lousitania – in order to open peoples eyes to the so-called War on Terra; I’m not saying I necessarily believe those allegations, but it’s certainly worth considering. If that turns out to be the case then it means that 9/11 isn’t really "a threat to us all" as the Brush would have us believe, but a cynical ploy to get him re-elected (and rich to boot).

    So with that in mind, the whole War on Terra loses much of it’s "threat" – personally I do not feel threatened at all; as people have pointed out before we lived through 30 years of IRA scares which were real. I have seen nothing apart from 9/11 which points to the existence of this huge terror threat from "Al Qaeda"; again, there is plenty speculation that Al Queda is a figment of the US Intelligence services. Again, I would point out that I don’t necessarily believe this, but I like to consider all the angles instead of blindly believing what I’m told by politicians whom we all know are often corrupt at least.

    You could point to various other "Al Qaeda" attacks in Africa and on the USS Cole; but, as we all know, governments and politicians in general care not a jot for their service people; attacks on remote African embassies could be lumped into the same category. Taken all together, all these pointers are at least sufficient to warrant further investigation. The US governments kneejerk reactions are familiar to us all by now; the last thing we want is for this country to become infected with the same paranoia (because that’s all it is) that the US has suffered from over the past century.

    Having said all that then, invading Iraq was another disingenious ploy by the US; Tony Blair was either aware of the big picture or he was duped. The fact that there are no WMD in Iraq (sorry George, but you’ll never get me to see your point about this) just highlights the criminality of our governments. And on top of that, Iraq has now become a breeding ground for extremists; never mind what Iraq MIGHT or COULD become in the future, it is the here and now which is important, and installing a US stooge as PM is only going to make things worse – as it HAS done. I predict that Iraq will break down into all-out civil war before too long; if that happens, what will we do? Bomb them again?

    In actual fact, civil war would probably suit the US down to the ground; they wouldn’t then need to invent a reason to keep a big military presence there. And as anyone who has an ounce of healthy cynicism in them, there is no way the US ever intends to leave Iraq – it’s the new gateway to central Asia.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 10 Aug 2004 on 4:24 pm | Link
  15. You still don`t get it!.I wish with all my heart that there were/are no W.M.D.in all of this. I cannot understand you at all.I WILL EXPLAIN.You say you can see past the end of your nose to what is going on and you do not accept what Bush/Blair say to you.GREAT.That is what you should do.You should go away and find out for yourself. BUT.Then you accept that there are NO W.M.D.because someone else say`s there are none and by your own word`s you cannot prove that!!! but you accept that as FACT. I on the other hand say I WANT TO KNOW that there are NO W.M.D. PLEASE can someone give me A SHREAD OF EVIDENCE until someone does I HAVE to go on what I know (THE FACT`S) and that is there are W.M.D. Does it not tell you something that even those that are shouting that there are no W.M.D. are covering themselves by saying There are no W.M.D.well not many anyway!. Or Kerry he say`s "Just because people say there are W.M.D.in Iraq doesn`t make it so" Bush could say the same thing "Just because people say there are NO W.M.D.in Iraq doesn`t make it so" BUT that would not be true as it has NEVER been proved that there are NO W.M.D.in or out of Iraq. Can`t you see NEARLY all the TOP politicians are covering there well rounded backside`s they won`t commit,they know there`s a real danger but they by there own word`s seek to mislead other`s. I mean what does "there are no W.M.D well not many anyway" mean, it mean`s ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    Comment by george dutton — 11 Aug 2004 on 12:16 am | Link
  16. Er,George,exactly what are these facts that prove to you that there are w.m.d.?
    It appears to me that the most powerful and technologically advanced nations in the world just cannot find them.On the basis of that fact alone the likelihood that these weapons do not exist is totally convincing.
    This, taken together with the conclusions of men of the integrity and experience of Dr.Hans Blix et al;and the fact that no w.m.d. were used in any of the Gulf wars,by Iraq anyway,even though the very existance of the Hussein regime was under threat as never before,makes it very difficult to ascribe any credence to proven liars like Blair and his Government,and to our intelligence services,who seem to rely heavily on the internet for their sources of informatiion.(conspiracy theorists take heart!)

    Comment by lazarus issass — 25 Aug 2004 on 7:33 pm | Link
  17. Well they were used in the Iraq/Iran war.We also have the inventory of how much we sold them we cannot account for it all,enough to make at least 6,000 warhead`s by our reckoning,how much other`s sold them we don`t know!!!.We know by Jaffer`s own admission that there were W.M.D.in Iraq before the Iraq war!.We know what kind of man saddam is, would he have had them destroyed!!!.The very fact that we can`t find ANYBODY that can tell us were they were destroyed or saw them being destroyed!.Would saddam have had the weapon inspector`s chuck out AFTER they had found all his W.M.D.or do you think he would have had them chuck out BEFORE they found all his W.M.D.Read all the post I have put on and you will see more!.There again I am telling you and other`s nothing that people don`t know!!!.Even Robin Cook,Clair Short,Lynn Jones,are not saying there are NO W.M.D. they are saying There are no W.M.D. well not many anyway!!!.As for you saying other`s are saying there are no W.M.D.VERY few are saying that MOST are saying they have not been found YET.So if they don`t know how do YOU!.

    Comment by george dutton — 25 Aug 2004 on 8:45 pm | Link
  18. George, the discussion isn’t about whether or not Iraq ever had w.m.d.,but about whether they were in existance from the period of the first Gulf war to the period prior to the second.It was the assertion of Blair and Bush that they were.On this basis Iraq was invaded by the West,but not before her defenses had been depleted by constant air attacks over a period of more than a decade,so her ability to defend herself was vastly reduced.
    Whatever caveats Short and others may put on their statements to cover themselves.the truth is no weopons of mass destruction have ever been found, despite all the advantages of penetrative satellite imagery and search techniques using state of the art geophysical and chemical and radiological chemical trace technology.
    Dr.Blix does not believe these weopons exist to the best of my understanding of his position,and nor do I.
    At the end of the day those of us who care about these issues have to reach a position on the evidence available.My belief is that no w.m.d. exist and their is no evidence to show they do.
    You, of course are perfectly entitled to form your own conclusions to the contrary.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 25 Aug 2004 on 10:09 pm | Link
  19. The problem with your conclusion is this.Where is the PROOF there are no W.M.D. We know there are W.M.D. it has NEVER been proved there are none,when we come down to it there is NOTHING.It is unreal to say what you say.Do you say what you say because you feel it!.For myself I will alway`s go on what I KNOW not on rumour`s that came out of Iraq from people that when asked cannot give you ANY proof but someone told them.So it come`s down at the end of the day going on what we think and not on what we know.You ask question`s that I have dealt with in post`s on this web site so do you read the post`s!!!.I think not.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 12:26 am | Link
  20. Your own country makes WMD every day. They stockpile them. I encourage you to invade your country, and remove the government; you can, in its place, hold its people hostage and construct a government of your choice and hand it a constitution which contains much which is controversial with the local residents of that country.

    Until you wake up and realise that your own country is part of the problem, not the solution, you cannot honestly expect people to back the idea of one nation with blood on its hands for attacking another nation *solely because it has blood on its hands*.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 26 Aug 2004 on 3:51 pm | Link
  21. Amen.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Aug 2004 on 4:31 pm | Link
  22. George,I do read the posts,and I do not base my conclusions on feelings.I,I assume like everybody else who has posted here,try to make the best sense of available facts.I draw a different coclusion to you,in spite of whatever questions you claim to have answered.
    My conclusions are not unreal,but based on all available evidence;and "shouting"on the forum isn’t going to help

    Getting back to the issues,Gregory is quite right.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 26 Aug 2004 on 6:11 pm | Link
  23. Another one that get`s personal,that`s all I need!. Well let`s see shall we!."On all available evidence" What evidence would that be!!!.Please tell us all as no one but a few that come on here to this site appear to KNOW.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 7:17 pm | Link
  24. George,I’m not going to rise to your bait.I think you and all on the forum Know full well the evidence,and I’m not going to repeat it ad nauseum for your satisfaction.
    I’m not getting personal either.If you want an arguement,I’m not playing,the issues under discussion are far too serious.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 26 Aug 2004 on 7:32 pm | Link
  25. Hang about George, who’s getting "personal"?

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Aug 2004 on 7:33 pm | Link
  26. I only ask for YOUR evidence!.Got NONE I thought so.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 9:06 pm | Link
  27. Papa who does get personal on this site!,try looking in the mirror.And as for your previous post`s you said you have NEVER said there were NO W.M.D.that I had to prove there were none remember.Well you don`t remember that well go and look at the other butler report the one with 83 comment`s you said there that you could prove there were NO W.M.D.scroll down and see your number 8 you contradict yourself!.The reason for that is you have already made your mind up and refuse to face the FACT`S.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 9:14 pm | Link
  28. lazarus you say "all the forum" are you now trying to say YOU know what everyone that come`s on to this forum think`s!,I think not, you do assume a lot of thing`s.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 9:21 pm | Link
  29. By the way I am not as you say shouting. I am emphasising the point.People that say I am shouting are people that are losing the debate and look for something to say to distract from the debate.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 9:45 pm | Link
  30. So far George, you are the only one – THE ONLY ONE – who says he has proof of WMD leading up to the invasion in 2003. You constantly ask for proof of non-existence. Where is your proof of existence? And I don’t mean the Iran – Iraq war; I mean PROOF OF EXISTENCE IN 2003. You have none. The number of people who have visited this site and expressed a contrary viewpoint to your own has increased, and I have yet to see a SINGLE COMMENT from ANYONE who agrees with you.

    And yes, I have made my mind up – there is NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. Personally I don’t believe in God; that is up to me. I’m an agnostic; if I ever see something which I believe is proof of the existence of an omniescent higher being, then I might change my mind. But right here and now I don’t believe he exists. I don’t have to go out of my way to PROVE he does not exist; to my mind there is no evidence that HE DOES EXIST.

    Same with this argument. It doesn’t mean I am stupid, or I refuse to face the facts, or I am insane, or any of the other reasons you have come out with over the months when no-one agrees with you (on this site). To my mind there is NO EVIDENCE that WMD existed in 2003. The list of people who also believe this is huge, headed by Hans Blix; then there is David Kay, followed by the inspectors themselves. And they have been to Iraq and spent many months searching for evidence; to date they have found NOTHING. Not a sausage. You’d think if something existed, there’d be SOMEthing, SOMEwhere. But there isn’t. And the more time goes on, the chances of this situation changing grow ever smaller.

    The only people in the world that now still seem convinced there were WMD in 2003 are yourself, Tony Bliar and George Brush. Two of those can be instantly discounted because they are known liars; that leaves yourself. But you have no PROOF. So again, to apply your own argument, you refuse to face the facts. You have made your mind up and refuse to admit defeat. Fine, you do that. Because you know and the rest of us know that in the same way as we have no proof, neither do you. Therefore it comes down to belief – and you can believe what you want. The basis for your belief is what you were told by the other two liars I listed; that doesn’t say much for your overall judgement…!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 26 Aug 2004 on 11:07 pm | Link
  31. George I think a twelve or thirteen year old could understand what I am saying.There is no great mystery,but for you let me just say the following:-

    1.Everyone who has posted here has access to the same body of information from which to draw their conclusions.This information is in the public domain.If you are asking do I have access to the inner sanctums of the White House and Downing Street,the answer is no.I base my conclusions about events on this massive body of public information.

    2.I do not know what everybody on this forum thinks,but I find what they say interesting and their comments just as valid as mine.

    3.In such protocols as exist in posting on forums,the use of capitals is usually taken as indicating anger or worse.You seem to want to argue rather than debate.You generate a lot of heat but hardly any light.

    4.Finally as long as people are dying in Najaf under the bombardment of American led forces;as long as Iraq is ungovernable by any civilised standard;as long as every day that passes produces not the slightest meerest shred of evidence of weapons of mass destruction,myself and others who have opposed this war and the premise on which it was fought,will never lose the debate or distract others from it.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 26 Aug 2004 on 11:26 pm | Link
  32. Firstly, we do have someone that say`s there were W.M.D. before 2003 JAFFER said there were W.M.D. Secondly,God does exist because you are dealing in the spiritual not in the reality,therefore God exist`s in who ever believes he exist`s. Thirdly,I am saying I have seen no proof there are NO W.M.D.You say Hans Blix and other`s say there are NO W.M.D.I think you will find that they are saying they THINK there are NO W.M.D.A UNIVERSE of difference.Fourthly,You don`t know how many people think like I do or how many people think as you do!.Again you assume!!!.As for the number of people that come onto this site and say I am wrong are the one`s that don`t like war`s or killing of any kind and feel QUITE RIGHTLY that it is all wrong.UNFORTUNATELY life is not like that it is a FACT that we have to live in REALITY and not in what we want the world to be.But to say to me that I have to prove there are NO W.M.D. when you have NO PROOF that they do not exsit and have told me you have NONE is something I cannot UNDERSTAND.

    Comment by george dutton — 26 Aug 2004 on 11:37 pm | Link
  33. Firstly,Again you try and belittle me by saying a twelve or thirteen could understand what you say,I beg to differ as will some other`s on that!.Secondly,What body of information say`s there are NO W.M.D.and then goes on to prove it!!!PLEASE TELL ME.Thirdly,I too find the comment`s of other`s very interesting,I would find them even more interesting if I could find JUST ONE that can give me PROOF that is NO W.M.D.not one has so far!.Fourthly,It is recognised that the use of CAPITAL`S is to EMPHASIS a point,but there again you make up what you want to! that again is to belittle me or other`s from the debate.Fifth,What we see in Iraq now is a power struggle that is going on,I am not the only one saying that it has just been said on newsnight and in the press.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 12:02 am | Link
  34. 1. Who’s Jaffer?
    2. As far as I am concerned, God does not exist. You believe what you want.
    3. You said that you personally CAN prove there were WMD in 2003 – you have so far singularly failed to prove any such thing.
    4. I specified people who have posted on this site, not just people in general. So far there is not one single person who has posted a comment agreeing with your viewpoint.
    5. You ASSUME that the people who come on this site and disagree with you are people who believe war is wrong, full stop. You do not KNOW. That is a patently disingenious dodge – a very convenient excuse why no-one on this site has yet to agree with you. Why not assume, as I do, that the people who come on this site represent a fairly typical cross-section of society? Because that way you’d have to agree that everyone ON THIS SITE disagrees with you. But in actual fact you are wrong. I for one don’t believe ALL war and killing is wrong. I believe there is a time when it is the only right thing to do. Iraq was NOT one of these cases.
    6. I nor anyone else has ever said you have to prove there are no WMD. You yourself said you can prove they exist. So go on, prove it. Not by repeating what Jaffer said. Not by repeating what Robin Cook or Clare Short said. Not by telling us they existed during the Iran – Iraq war. The reason you have yet to actually prove anything apart from repeating your own beliefs and what so and so said, is because you can’t.
    7. If there is no direct and irrefutable evidence that something exists; if there aren’t even any recent reasonable GUESSES whether something exists or not; then how can anyone, including yourself, Brush and Bliar, assert beyond doubt they DO exist?
    8. If you have trouble understanding what I and many others have been harping on about for a good while now on this subject, you’re definitely in the wrong place!

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Aug 2004 on 12:11 am | Link
  35. You are unbelievably!.I have already told you who Jaffer is!.YOU DON`T read post`s.ONCE AGAIN I don`t have to prove there are W.M.D.It has already been proved,it has NEVER been proved there are NONE.And how many people have come on this site and said I am wrong about 5/6!!! Oh BIG DEAL.Not one of them has giving me ANY PROOF that there are NO W.M.D.all I get is what they THINK I am not that interested in what they THINK I want to KNOW.I am a seeker of the truth and not of maybe and could be and well it look`s that way or so and so say it`s so,so I will.That route is for those who other`s try to manipulate when they know they want to believe something.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 12:45 am | Link
  36. To PROVE that WMD exist, you have to have the weapons themselves. Do you know where they are? Does anyone? In that case, there is no proof they exist. The only acceptable proof is the weapons themselves. Nothing less.

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Aug 2004 on 4:06 am | Link
  37. I think Papa that Chris Lightfoot was trying to tell us something last night.Quite right too.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 9:04 am | Link
  38. Go and prove to me that there aren’t pink elephants that dance. While you’re at it, find PROOF that pigs don’t fly.

    We want fact’s.

    Comment by Gregory Block — 27 Aug 2004 on 10:11 am | Link
  39. Yes they do in Disney cartoon`s.That`s a FACT as well.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 11:31 am | Link
  40. I am NOT making any assertion`s as such.I am asking you to prove there are NO W.M.D. as you are saying that.All I know is that they were used in the Iraq/Iran war.So if they don`t exist now tell me how they don`t! give me proof.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 11:44 am | Link
  41. George,I think Papa in the 23.07 posting on 26/08,puts the situation very well.
    As far as you and I are concerned,I have in no way sought to belittle you by stating that twelve and thirteen year olds could understand me.I just don’t feel that I express myself that badly that you have difficulty understanding what I say.
    As far as the use of capitals is concerned I think I have understood the protocol correctly.However I do accept you have been using them for emphasis as indeed some others have.My apologies to you and other posters for any misunderstanding or offence caused.

    Comment by lazarus issass — 27 Aug 2004 on 2:02 pm | Link
  42. Thank`s for your apology.As for W.M.D.we will never agree. I because I believe NOTHING unless I KNOW.If I have to go on could be,then I will when nothing else present`s itself.But I know that it FAR too important a matter then to play politic`s with our national security.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 3:04 pm | Link
  43. I should have told you the reason I don`t shout.After 30 year`s of marriage I can assure you that shouting is alway`s followed by a sharp pain.

    Comment by george dutton — 27 Aug 2004 on 5:18 pm | Link
  44. Sharp pain around the lughole, George?! ;o)

    Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 27 Aug 2004 on 5:37 pm | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)


This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Downing Street Says...

The unofficial site which lets you comment on the UK Prime Minister's official briefings. About us...


July 2004
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
« Jun   Aug »

Supported by


Disruptive Proactivity

Recent Briefings



Syndicate (RSS/XML)



Contact Sam Smith.

This site is powered by WordPress. Theme by Jag Singh