Skip to main content

Ex Australian PM attempts to defend himself (laughably!) for the Iraq War

There are common features of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard.  Each has patently lied about the reasons for going into the Iraq War - and many would argue, cogently and with a true basis for saying so, that each of the 3 men can be characterised as war criminals for their actions.

John Howard, Australian PM at the time of the invasion of Iraq - and if ever there was a toady to the USA he was one, alongside the chameleon Tony Blair - is now attempting to explain away, and defend himself, for any fault on his part in being involved in the attack on Iraq.     It's all rather delusional of course.......

"Former prime minister John Howard has hotly rejected the claim that he led Australia into the 2003 Iraq war on the basis of a lie.

Mr Howard said the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the allied invasion was ''unexpected'' and that some of the key assessments of Western intelligence agencies proved wrong.

But he told the Lowy Institute in Sydney, in a speech marking the 10th anniversary of the conflict, that this was a ''world away from those [intelligence] assessments being the product of deceit and/or political manipulation.'' Mr Howard said the belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's was ''near universal'' at the time.

He said the bloody conflict between Sunni and Shiites which broke out in Iraq after the war ''did more damage in my judgment to the credibility of the coalition operation … than the failure to find stockpiles of WMDs''. The circumstances of the time, he said, ''necessitated a 100 per cent ally, not a 70 or 80 per cent one''.

Mr Howard said it was ''implausible'' to think the overthrow of Saddam had ''no relationship of any kind'' to the recent Arab Spring. He acknowledged the close relationship with the US was key to his government's decision to go into Iraq, saying, ''There was a sense then that a common way of life was under threat.''



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...