No its not the insurgency that is causing the most problems. Foreigners are only estimated at 2-10% of the fighters, 500,000 Iraqis are involved in the civil war.

Hazel Blears is so small lol. I know that is a daft comment to mate but it is so obvious.

I like the guy who is second from the right hand side. I'm afraid I dont know any of the names of these fine people, but anyway..

It still kind of annoys me that interviews ask the "with what you know now, would you still vote ..." questions.

I really don't think that is productive at all. The questions should be aimed at how do you fix the problems we have now, and how to we prevent future problems. That is constructive.

Talking about how people voted 5 years ago doesn't do anybody a damn bit of good.

A lof of people voted for a lot of different reasons. The fact is that the bushies lied to us about the WMDs. With that in mind, it just seems really stupid to bash people who voted for the war.

Why do english and american politicians always say that the whole world believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ? The fact that they could not think for themselves doesn't mean that the rest of the world wasnt able to do so.

She would've voted no if she knew there were no WMDs. Bullocks

UK Ministers Knew WMD Was "Excuse" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9111.htm

Remember the downings street memos folks...the British certainly knew it was a lie.

Posted by: Valkesh

Talking about how people voted 5 years ago doesn't do anybody a damn bit of good.

I disagree with that. Would you rather support someone who acknowledged that they made a mistake or someone who would have still supported a war without the proper justification to declare it?

Those who sidestepped answering that question in the video came off as attempting to cover up the fact that they made a mistake. I agree with the one gentleman who said that they should move forward and all that, but the point would have been better made by first saying "yes" or "no".

Though I have to admit, "knowing what you know now" sounds an awful lot like "knowing what public reaction was going to be" and not "knowing the details of Iraq as they are known now".

The real question is this: Knowing that the Bush Administration knew what we all know now, what were the real reasons that they had for driving us into a war with Iraq?

I have this sterotype that European politics are less screwed up then US politics. Obviously that is not true.

Most reasonable people didn't believe in WMD's. Hans Blix for one.

Insurgency is by definition made up of Iraqis.(and it's a civil war now anyway)

Labour leadership?

Gordon Brown. That's it.

You know we all make mistakes. Oops; I bought the wrong brand of coffee. But Oops, I invaded the wrong country and started a war lasting longer than world war II; to get WMD that were a figment of bush's tiny imagination, thats one hell of a big oops. Can we afford this kind of unprecedented incompetence?

The UK knew that Bush was bluffing on the WMD question, because they knew that the war plans were being made long before any issue of WMD even existed. Also the brits were with the US all the way in ignoring the UN and in charging into Iraq despite the fact that Saddam was offering to give more time to the inspectors and giving them unlimited access to all of his facilities. We forget to quickly...Saddam caved in completely right before the Invasion, and the US and UK reacted by saying it was irrelevant that Saddam was letting them in, since you know...the whole thing was an excuse to invade..so cooperation was not something we wanted to begin with.

So no, these people can squirm all they want about not knowing, but they knew, and if they didn't then they were willfully ignorant or downright stupid, with any of the above being an indictment against them ever being an MP or a politician at all. They are scapegoating Bush, but they are just as responsible for what happened as Bush and co is.

thaddeusphoenix:,1984:,Editor:, Susceptor:

Here, here!

Can you believe that guy was calling for even greater war making potential?!

Sad, but at least the U.K. recognize they are subject...

We must deny governments this sort of discretion, the masses are too easily misled. The "Founding Fathers" understood this when they gave war powers to the lower house. Hermann Goering summed it up succinctly at Nuremberg.

Wouldn't they have had to ignore the UN weapons inspections as well?

They're lying. They knew. They were bought.

"No its not the insurgency that is causing the most problems. Foreigners are only estimated at 2-10% of the fighters, 500,000 Iraqis are involved in the civil war."

It always amazes me that people try to throw out numbers like that with authority. We can't even get a 100% accurate census count in modern countries, so it seems reasonable to take your claims with a grain of salt.

In any case, you're definitely splitting hairs. The point is that it is not coalition forces causing the vast majority of the deaths, and it never has been. There is a real enemy in Iraq, and they are a real threat if our forces leave.

"Why do english and american politicians always say that the whole world believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ?"

Because most countries belong to the UN, and the UN certainly believed there were WMD in Iraq. How do you explain the 10+ years of inspections, sanctions, fly-overs, et al, if they didn't?

Hindsight is 20/20.

"I disagree with that. Would you rather support someone who acknowledged that they made a mistake or someone who would have still supported a war without the proper justification to declare it?"

I definitely agree with the sentiment of being tired of this kind of question. There's entirely too much hand-wringing over the first step and little to no concern for the continuing course. Everyone is just adopting a hardline position based on "what if we knew this" or "we made this mistake", but those facts do not change the current problem.

"The real question is this: Knowing that the Bush Administration knew what we all know now, what were the real reasons that they had for driving us into a war with Iraq?"

The British were entirely complicit in this matter. Possibly the most distasteful thing about the British is how they constantly disregard their own culpability in the current situation just to blame the big, bad US.

I agree with those who say that these people actually knew better. There were several dissenters, French President Jacques Chirac for example, who said that they did not see the evidence for WMD's.

He said that in an interview on American television not long before the war.

However, the participants handled themselves well. Just compare them to those in the Republican candidates' debate.

"I agree with those who say that these people actually knew better. There were several dissenters, French President Jacques Chirac for example, who said that they did not see the evidence for WMD's."

Again, a grain of salt is necessary for digestion. France was actually selling war materiel to Iraq at the time. They were also profiting immensely from oil-for-food kickbacks. So they had a strong interest in maintaining the status quo - which itself was killing countless innocent Iraqis.

The fact that people either fail to acknowledge the criminal actions of France (and Russia) and instead promulgate the myth of "peaceful, sensible France and Russia" really makes my blood boil. They were protecting a market resource that they had helped create, and nothing more.

"However, the participants handled themselves well. Just compare them to those in the Republican candidates' debate."

Frankly it all sounds like political doubletalk to me, regardless of the accent. Did anybody actually propose an idea in that entire 'debate'? The presenter kept coming back to the tired "If you knew now ..." line of inquiry, and everybody seemed to just want to reply with some nonsense about "Shirking responsibility." It's all theater. In this case, it's Masterpiece Theater.

"Why do english and american politicians always say that the whole world believed that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction ?"

Because most countries belong to the UN, and the UN certainly believed there were WMD in Iraq. How do you explain the 10+ years of inspections, sanctions, fly-overs, et al, if they didn't?

Incredibly illogical! Informed skepticism of the US-British WMD claims, and there was plenty of skepticism BEFORE the war, was derived from the fact that there were indeed 10+ years of inspections! The inspectors supervised and documented the destruction of many WMD manufacturing plants (chemical and biological) - including many of those Powell bloviated about in his horseshit 02/05/03 speech to the UN. In February 2001, the CIA delivered a report to the White House that said: “We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.” The report was so definitive that Powell said in a subsequent press conference, Saddam Hussein “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”

Absolutely no new information to support the case for WMDs was gathered after the time that the CIA report was delivered - including information gathered by inspectors in the period directly before the war (before Bush pulled them out). The "information" that was "new" was disinformation manufactured in Douglas Feith's Lie Factory and stovepiped to the White House by Cheney's neocons. Nobody doubted that Hussein longed to have WMDs such as those developed and stockpiled by the United States, the best experts and inspectors believed he didn’t possess them - period.

The British were entirely complicit in this matter. Possibly the most distasteful thing about the British is how they constantly disregard their own culpability in the current situation just to blame the big, bad US.

Agreed, but don't get carried away. The tail didn't wag the dog. The Americans led the way, the British followed and there certainly would have been no war if only the British had wanted it.

"Incredibly illogical! Informed skepticism of the US-British WMD claims, and there was plenty of skepticism BEFORE the war, was derived from the fact that there were indeed 10+ years of inspections!"

If the inspections were continued, the skepticism obviously wasn't greater than the belief.

Right up until the invasion there were weapons inspectors being barred from key areas and UN outrage at the fact. There were sanctions and warnings and dire threats against Iraq. The fact that there were level-headed people behind the scenes trying to defuse the situation with reason doesn't surprise me - that's usually the case. The point is, at the time nobody was listening. Nobody. Not just the US. Heck, even Paul Martin said that he was "three months" away from getting the UN to commit to military action against Iraq. Frankly I wish he'd done that, because if the world needs less of one thing, it's smug Canadians.

"Agreed, but don't get carried away. The tail didn't wag the dog. The Americans led the way, the British followed and there certainly would have been no war if only the British had wanted it."

While that's true, it's a lot like saying "I only shot that guy because you shot him first." In the end both parties committed the same crime. Some would even argue that it takes a greater idiot to follow an idiot.

It just seems all academic. There's virtually nobody who isn't partially to blame for the current situation (except possibly Sweden). Yet while there is a real, current problem to solve, everyone is still busy pointing fingers and getting on soapboxes. Should candidates of today be answering questions about what they would have done four years ago with current knowledge? I mean, disregarding the impracticality of the subject, can you even expect them to say anything other than what you want to hear?

While Parliament is responsible for bringing the british into the war, to deny that the entire thing stemmed from the US is comical.

If the US hadn't gone in, the british wouldn't have gone in. Simple as that. These government officials are just doing what government does best, trying to cover their own ass.

Some would even argue that it takes a greater idiot to follow an idiot.

While you haven't convinced me on your earlier points, I fully agree with this remark. It is a diagnosis I've applied to many a Bush voter.

It just seems all academic. There's virtually nobody who isn't partially to blame for the current situation (except possibly Sweden). Yet while there is a real, current problem to solve, everyone is still busy pointing fingers and getting on soapboxes. Should candidates of today be answering questions about what they would have done four years ago with current knowledge? I mean, disregarding the impracticality of the subject, can you even expect them to say anything other than what you want to hear?

Once again, I agree. Questions regarding what the US or Britain 'should have done' are only useful in evaluating the wisdom or credibility of candidates who had a significant role in the original decisions - which applies to few of the candidates in the US. Most of those who were demonstrably right about Iraq (in my opinion) aren't running or have been pronounced as "unelectable" by the all-wise media (Paul, Kucinich, Gravel) - only Obama among the "viable" candidates is on record as opposed from the beginning.

No people applauding every other statement... thats refreshing.

only Obama among the "viable" candidates is on record as opposed from the beginning.

Everyone I've heard at this point (Obama included) is mostly, if not entirely, full of bullshit rhetoric and vague promises. But Obama is mainstream (ie. peepul have seens him on the teevee) and his actions against the Iraq Clusterfuck are worth far more than the words that dribble out of a politician's mouth.

Vote Obama, you yankee morons. His dissent to starting Iraqnam confirms, five years and ten bajillion dollars later, that he has at least two brain cells to rub together.

teafor, "They were also profiting immensely from oil-for-food kickbacks. So they had a strong interest in maintaining the status quo - which itself was killing countless innocent Iraqis."

Actually, it was American companies who most profited from the the oil-for-food program.

Interesting difference with the Repulican and Democratic Presidential candidates debates and this debate; there are no posturing british flags in the background.

They are liars, the UN inspectors told them that were no WMDs and they still voted for the war.

Yes, no applause, no flags. It is an interesting, subtle distinction.

The most "sad but true" line in the whole clip?

One candidate says: "Well, we have to deal with whoever is in the White House"

and another says: "...we have to do their bidding."

So Carmen, "Yankee" and "moron" go together like "horse" and "carriage"? And how many brain cells do you have, three? Or do you mean that you are by definition more intelligent than people who hold opinions different from yours? What i only mean is that onegoodmove is one site where we can deeply disagree without resorting to insult, and i hope we all keep it that way, because i am afraid that if we do not, we will all be poorer for that… So Carmen, no offence, my barb about your brain cell count was only for rhetorical effect (and as Basil told the germans in Fawlty Towers: "You started it!"), so that if we ever do get down to insulting each other, we keep it fun! Signed: an Arrogant French

Jean-Paul, names of people who make posts here appear BELOW their post. So, how does shoe leather taste?

teaforthetillerman, you can suck my .... buddy!!

what was that crap about the majority of the world thought iraq had WMD? and that last guy at the end - thats premptive war hes talking about, what a bad idea.

obviously the majority did not--the pre-war anti-war demonstrations across the globe were the first of their kind, ever, which gives one reason to hope.

besides, sooo much evidence has come to light about the bush-blair conspiracy to commit to iraq (contrary to bush's campaign promises) REGARDLESS of 1. saddam complying 100% to UN resolutions; and 2. his actual WMD count [i.e., the downing street memo; the how-can-we-tie-this-to-saddam rumsfeld memo on 9-12-01; the meetings on iraq RIGHT AFTER the first bush inaugural; etc.] that it leaves little doubt that THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. read ritter's book, "iraq confidential," if you still wrangle with this, for god's sakes.

then pick up "target iran" if you still have any stomach left for where we'll go next (or have already gone, imo), REGARDLESS.

jean-paul,

Three brain cells is the minimum amount a person needs to not respond to mistake people's names.

Apparently, three brain cells is also the minimum to recognise hyperbole and sarcastic humor.

Obviously there's nothing tongue-in-cheek about "vote Obama you Yankee morons", and also, Stephen Colbert is totally a neo-con pundit.

*sigh* :\