Howard? He's been in the news in the last 24 hours and must feel very important since not one outlet has mistakenly called him "John Major" as used to happen so frequently from 2003 to 2006.
Luke Royes (Australia's ABC) explains:
Former prime minister John Howard says he was "embarrassed" intelligence he used to take Australia to war in Iraq was inaccurate and denies it was a "deliberate deception".In an interview broadcast on the Seven Network, Mr Howard said he and the then National Security Committee of Cabinet in 2003 sent Australian troops into Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the West.
Howard's argument is that, like so many others, he was duped by the US government. One wonders why he doesn't feel duped by the UK as well? But he blames the American assessment, the 'intel.'
Howard's been out of office for seven years now.
That's a long time to wait to make a confession.
Then again to admit you were a dupe, that people died because of your stupidity and gullibility? That might take seven or more years to own up to.
Tony Blair's still refusing to own any of the blame.
War Criminal Tony spent a lot of money on those face lifts and he damn well intends to get as much camera time as he can. Georgia Graham (Telegraph of London) reports:
Tony Blair has said that politicians should heed his advice that British boots on the ground in Iraq should not be ruled out because he had experience of taking Britain to war in that country.
The former Prime Minister said people should “appreciate” that he has learnt lessons through going to war in Iraq and listen to his thoughts on tackling Islamic State because they are “precisely” the same terrorist forces he battled during the conflict.
I agree with Tony 100% that people should listen to him.
I just happen to feel those people should be a War Crimes Tribunal prosecuting him.
Tony Blair should be on trial for War Crimes. Barring that, can he and his wife just disappear into the jungle again and again smear fruits on their naked bodies and again make love? Maybe a huge swarm of ants can then address the Tony Blair problem once and for all?
Peyton M. Craighill's trying to ignore a problem. The Washington Post used a push poll to get pro-war results and, thing is, the giddy high fell almost immediately. So instead of revealing that, Craighill was assigned to cover 'follow ups' with select respondents. As if preparing readers for what's to come -- less support for air strikes -- Craighill, sotto voiced, notes a few things that should have been reported last week when covering the poll results.
At The Huffington Post, HA Goodman offers "5 Dirty Little Secrets Every American Should Know About President Obama's ISIS Strategy:"
1. President Obama, like many presidents before him, is lying by omission. If airstrikes don't work and ISIS conquers Bagdad, will he still keep his promise of never sending American troops back to Iraq? Of course not.
Unlike Secretary Gates or General Dempsey, President Obama never seems to address the possibility of his current strategy failing to destroy ISIS. LBJ sought "no wider war" but we know how that turned out. President Bush declared, "We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail" and we're still in Iraq over a decade later. President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry can make a million assurances of never sending American ground troops back to Iraq, but these promises contradict the statements of Secretary Gates, General Dempsey, and others. General Daniel Bolger has an upcoming book titled, Why We Lost, and illustrates that in both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars, "This enemy wasn't amenable to the type of war we're good at fighting, which is a Desert Storm or a Kosovo." Even former British PM Tony Blair has explained that a fighting force "with a willingness to take casualties in carrying the fight through to the end" is needed to defeat this terrorist group, and that ground troops are a reality if ISIS is to be destroyed. Finally, retired Marine General James Conway is a little more direct than Blair, Dempsey, Bolger and others when stating, "I don't think the president's plan has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding."
So why is Obama continually saying one thing while his generals are saying another? The president, like all presidents, is waiting for the political capital needed to make the unpopular decision, and this is why he's promising never to send U.S. soldiers back to Iraq; even when generals, a former Defense Secretary and British PM, and others contradict his promises.
New content at Third:
- Truest statement of the week
- A note to our readers
- Editorial: Where's the political solution?
- TV: The pack goes after Debra Messing and mothers...
- TV Roundtable
- Turntable Triumphs
- 10 Best Film Noir Films In Color
- 10 Best Film Noir Films in Black & White
- Caught in the act again
- This edition's playlist
- IAVA Responds to VA Whistleblower’s Testimony
- Why Obama’s ‘war on ISIS’ must be opposed
- Senator Sanders on "another Mideast war"
- Senator Rand Paul's Foreign Policy Address
On this week's Law and Disorder Radio, an hour long program that airs Monday mornings at 9:00 a.m. EST on WBAI and around the country throughout the week, hosted by attorneys Heidi Boghosian, Michael S. Smith and Michael Ratner (Center for Constitutional Rights) topics addressed include immigration, the people's climate march and the legality of Barack's current war actions.
The e-mail address for this site is email@example.com.
the telegraph of london
the washington post
peyton m. craighill
the huffington post
law and disorder radio
michael s. smith