Independent web developer. Graphic designer, web designer, Frontier developer, Manila hoster, latest project: intranet build for Government Office of West Midlands (UK), committed blogger since 1999.
See more details on services and more personal background who and where.
email 'spam free' or phone on: inside UK: 0800 849 6413 or outside UK: +44 1952 271 671 or mobile (and txt): +44 7903 940 427
Still busy, building the intranet for the Government Office. Nearly finished, just cleaning up the edges ready for the swap over at the weekend.
"Powell's presentation did not persuade the U.N. Security Council, but it did help convince many Americans that Saddam was a real threat."
I'm deeply troubled over this. I was for a war to rid Iraq of WMD. Now, I'm reading that it was a PR job, a spin put on very flimsy evidence. What would happen if they cried wolf again?
Part of me thinks that Saddam's taken his poison bottles with him. The other part thinks there never was any.
Short: Blair lied to cabinet and made secret war pact with US
... a new dossier on which Downing Street pins its hopes will be produced by US intelligence and weapons inspection teams.
Hmmm... So, a dossier saying that he had WMD is going to be spun up to cover the fact that there hasn't been any found? Are we that gullible?
Five steps to the world according to Bush
The British intelligence source said the best Humint on Saddam was held by the French who had agents in Iraq.
'French intelligence was telling us that there was effectively no real evidence of a WMD programme. That's why France wanted a longer extension on the weapons inspections. The French, the Germans and the Russians all knew there were no weapons there -- and so did Blair and Bush as that's what the French told them directly. Blair ignored what the French told us and instead listened to the Americans.' [Originally from the Sunday Herald]
My world is turning upside down. Who to believe? Do I really think a public inquiry will say Bush/Blair lied to take the US/UK to war because... ? Why? Because Rumsfield wanted to do so before Bush was elected?
My only reasoning, is that 'they' wanted to take the war on terrorism to the Middle East, rather than waiting for the inevitable.