tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post750644787368274854..comments2007-07-06T18:57:04.392-05:00Roland Doddshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17819155097718124744noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post-9690883262488731482007-07-06T18:57:00.000-05:002007-07-06T18:57:00.000-05:00Stephen:<BR/><BR/>I am not going to even bother going over these “doctored intelligence reports” you claim to posses, since the sheer foolishness of that comment is enough to discount your opinion. As any intel officer will tell you, intelligence is never a “sure” bet, and it always falls upon assumptions. While I may feel the Bush administration may have overlooked intel that did not meet their opinions, all administrations do, and the inevitable choice to go to war is political. <BR/><BR/>The basic reasoning and literature put forth by supporters of the war was clearly to redefine the region using democratic revolution to overthrow dictators and put forth governments that must adhere to their people’s wishes and rights. <BR/><BR/>I call bullshit on your assumption that Blair simply pursued the war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction.Roland Doddshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17819155097718124744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post-64739286410381534462007-07-06T16:18:00.000-05:002007-07-06T16:18:00.000-05:00Huh? Blair made the case for war on the basis of 'self defence', on the basis that the UK was imminently threatened by 'weapons of mass destruction' that could be deployed in 45 minutes. He supported his case with doctored intelligence reports shorn of all the caveats and privisos. Only when his dissembling was uncovered did he attempt to make the 'humanitarian' case for the war.Stephennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post-32682607098008800532007-07-03T23:09:00.000-05:002007-07-03T23:09:00.000-05:00It is true that Blair is less popular in Britain than Bush may be here in the States. But I do think that history will be kinder on Blair then it will on Bush, simply because he was so capable at explaining his position and reasoning for the conflict.Roland Doddshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17819155097718124744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post-8360914574864697702007-07-01T13:45:00.000-05:002007-07-01T13:45:00.000-05:00On the plus side he gave Labout thrre successive elction victoies (labour never had two full terms before), we have had 10 years of economic stability, and we now see peace in Northern Ireland. Iraq is the elephant in the room of course.jams o donnellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17315325008175184363noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24212995.post-50170143738636970032007-06-29T05:46:00.000-05:002007-06-29T05:46:00.000-05:00I'm not disagreeing with you exactly, but Blair's commendable efforts at persuasion are kind of sad in light of the fact that opposition to the Iraq War has been, if anything, more pronounced among the population of Britain than among the population of America.<BR/><BR/>And I never did get to hear Blair wail on that guitar of his.hydraliskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06064530930208976622noreply@blogger.com