Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

Thread: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

  1. #41
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by Joechilli View Post


    Courtesy of NeoCon Rupert Murdoch who also runs Fox News

    Joechill, you should do a little research. Does the New York Times and the NYT reporter Judith Miller stimulate your outer brain cells ?

    In fact if you dig back further during the Clinton administration you would probably find both the New York Times and Washington Post telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and there needs to be a regime change. It was President Clinton who called for regime change in Iraq and signed in to law the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. It was President Bush in 2003 who carried out that law five years later that Clinton signed in to law.


    >" For the past few days I’ve been spotlighting the high media crimes and misdemeanors committed in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, almost exactly ten years ago, featuring “treasured” journos such as David Brooks and Bob Woodward or even newspapers as a whole (The Washington Post). But it’s The New York Times and Judith Miller, among others, who will truly live in infamy—partly because of the paper’s outsized (perceived) influence.

    It’s instructive to review what happened when the paper belatedly owned up to (some) of its misdeeds, in May 2004, more than a year after its misconduct. Jack Shafer famously called it a “mini-culpa.” Bill Keller had replaced Howell Raines as executive editor but Judy Miller was still on board. Jill Abramson now has the top job and Keller writes a column. Michael Gordon is still a star reporter at the paper. Miller, naturally, toils at Fox News. Go here to see what Keller wrote two years ago when he tried to explain why he had been a “reluctant hawk” on Iraq.

    The following is excerpted from my book, which was published last week in an updated, expanded e-book edition, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the Media—Failed on Iraq.

    After months of criticism of The New York Times’s coverage of WMDS and the run-up to the war in Iraq—mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller (left)—the paper’s editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was “past time” they do so. While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, this low-key but scathing self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake. "< continue -> When the 'NYT' Offered a Weak 'Mini-Culpa' for Hyping Iraq WMD | The Nation

  2. #42
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 09:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    20,267

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Who exactly came up with the term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD) ?

    Before 9/11 in the military community it was always NBC (nuclear, biological, nuclear.)

    I guess any thing that can kill more than one person could be called a WMD. But we have to ask a white beard scratching liberal how many lives would have to be killed befolre that weapopn meets their deffinition as being a WMD, they are the ones who decide now days.

    A biological weapon like anthrax, mustard gas or sarin cause no destruction except to living things. A nuclear detonation would cause a lot of destruction. After that weapon the 16 " guns on a Iowa class battleship would be the most destructive weapon their is. Just one salvo from the 16" gun battery on an Iowa would level a 1/4 square mile of any city.

    Eric Holder's Department of Justice announced they were going to prosecute an American who supposedly fired a RPG in Syria. The DOJ has classified the RPG as a WMD saying since it could be used to shoot down a civilian aircraft with 200 souls on board, it meets the definition as a WMD. I suppose a Boeing 737 is also a WMD because they were used as a weapon to kill 3,000 people on 9/11.

    Who coined the phrase WMD ? Was it just a propaganda phrase to influence and scare people to further an agenda ?
    Nuclear, Biological and Chemical is your NBC acronym. When I was in it was CBR, Chemical, Biological and Radiological.

    Yes, I think that WMD is just a term like "terrorist", a term of propaganda used to scare people silly. The longer people are kept afraid, the more irrational they become.

    Even back in 1930 H.L. Mencken realized that politicians love to keep people scared. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    Our history demonstrates this clearly. The Brits do it too.

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    01-28-15 @ 06:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    5,587
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by KLATTU View Post
    If Bush and Blair lied about WMD, then they must have had some ulterior motive to invade IRaq. What was it?
    "A Clean Break" and other geopolitical and realpolitik reasons.

  4. #44
    Sage
    PeteEU's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,089

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    It's not a newspaper, it's the news service for the Defense Department where newspapers get their news from.
    And that is some how better?
    PeteEU

  5. #45
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    01-19-14 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    459

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And that is some how better?
    I bet Apacherat will fetch some more Pravda for us in anyway
    Last edited by Joechilli; 04-16-13 at 06:03 AM.

  6. #46
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    01-19-14 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    459

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Joechill, you should do a little research. Does the New York Times and the NYT reporter Judith Miller stimulate your outer brain cells ?

    In fact if you dig back further during the Clinton administration you would probably find both the New York Times and Washington Post telling us that Saddam Hussein had WMD's and there needs to be a regime change. It was President Clinton who called for regime change in Iraq and signed in to law the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. It was President Bush in 2003 who carried out that law five years later that Clinton signed in to law.


    >" For the past few days I’ve been spotlighting the high media crimes and misdemeanors committed in the run-up to the attack on Iraq, almost exactly ten years ago, featuring “treasured” journos such as David Brooks and Bob Woodward or even newspapers as a whole (The Washington Post). But it’s The New York Times and Judith Miller, among others, who will truly live in infamy—partly because of the paper’s outsized (perceived) influence.

    It’s instructive to review what happened when the paper belatedly owned up to (some) of its misdeeds, in May 2004, more than a year after its misconduct. Jack Shafer famously called it a “mini-culpa.” Bill Keller had replaced Howell Raines as executive editor but Judy Miller was still on board. Jill Abramson now has the top job and Keller writes a column. Michael Gordon is still a star reporter at the paper. Miller, naturally, toils at Fox News. Go here to see what Keller wrote two years ago when he tried to explain why he had been a “reluctant hawk” on Iraq.

    The following is excerpted from my book, which was published last week in an updated, expanded e-book edition, So Wrong for So Long: How the Press, the Pundits—and the Media—Failed on Iraq.

    After months of criticism of The New York Times’s coverage of WMDS and the run-up to the war in Iraq—mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller (left)—the paper’s editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was “past time” they do so. While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, this low-key but scathing self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake. "< continue -> When the 'NYT' Offered a Weak 'Mini-Culpa' for Hyping Iraq WMD | The Nation
    Judith Miller is a neoconservative so no not really, this is also not an argument about republicans and democrats who are more or less the same beast anyway.


    Inevitably Judy "Miss Run Amok" Miller became a runaway train, picking up speed on the way to a major wreck, which has now arrived. We are now left to contemplate the ruinous damage inflicted on the reputation and credibility of a great paper.

    Judith Miller: The Tragic Axis of the Neocons and the New York Times


    Off Topic, interesting article about the two party system:
    S/R 33: Republicans and Democrats: What’s the Difference? (Pete Dolack)

  7. #47
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Last Seen
    01-19-14 @ 04:11 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    459

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Unanimous votes in the UN security council about the weapons.
    In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.

    On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

  8. #48
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by Joechilli View Post
    In 2003, the governments of the US, Britain, and Spain proposed another resolution on Iraq, which they called the "eighteenth resolution" and others called the "second resolution." This proposed resolution was subsequently withdrawn when it became clear that several permanent members of the Council would cast no votes on any new resolution, thereby vetoing it. Had that occurred, it would have become even more difficult for those wishing to invade Iraq to argue that the Council had authorized the subsequent invasion. Regardless of the threatened or likely vetoes, it seems that the coalition at no time was assured any more than four affirmative votes in the Council—the US, Britain, Spain, and Bulgaria—well short of the requirement for nine affirmative votes.

    On September 16, 2004 Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan, speaking on the invasion, said, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN Charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
    It's amazing that you would attack a harmless writer at the NY Times and yet support the obvious corruption at the UN.

    Kofi Annan and the U.N.'s Culture of Corruption

    UN oil-for-food chief took Saddam bribes | World news | The Guardian

    Iraq Accepted Bribes for UN Food Deal

    It seems you fashion your own version of historical event.

  9. #49
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Last Seen
    10-27-13 @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,229

    Re: Former MI5 chief criticises Blair's defence of the Iraq war

    Quote Originally Posted by Grant View Post
    Do you have a link to another pop song to support these claims?
    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit...

    It was meant to be humorous..

    You must have had a soh bypass...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •