The politics was wrong, that he rarely declared what his ultimate aims were, as far as we can see, in terms of harping continually on weapons of mass destruction when actually he probably had some other strategy in mind. And secondly, the consequences of that war have been quite disastrous both for the people of Iraq and also for the west in terms of our wider interests in the war against global terror.He also claimed that UK military commanders should have refused to obey the orders to take part in the invasion. What a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap...
Who has said this? General Sir Michael Rose, retired. The radio interview is available from the link.
Hindsight, eh? It's a wonderful thing (via). July 2002:
The respected former soldier, writing in the Evening Standard, said: 'There are huge political and military risks associated with launching large-scale ground forces into Iraq.' He said Mr Blair was 'even more vague' than President Bush about what weapons of mass destruction Iraq held.The "benefit of hindsight" argument only works if people couldn't see this coming. But they could. Lot's of them. And not just a few moonbat lefties either.
Here's a question. How long will it be before a journalist is able to question Tony Blair about Sir Michael's statement? The Downing Street spokesman's response ignores the points made by the general and is utterly banal. When a journalist does finally pin Blair down and get him to comment on this, will he address these points or will he also erect a straw man to hide behind?
Is that democracy?
Impeach Tony Blair. Let's face it, anything on which Boris Johnston and George Galloway agree is always going to be indisputable. The earth is round. We agree. Tony Blair must be made to answer these questions. We agree. It's a no-brainer, as they say.
Tags: News, Politics, Tony Blair, Iraq, Sir Michael Rose
No comments:
Post a Comment