Is there any justice? Is seems difficult to believe in a day and age when Gulf Veterans and Ghurkas fail to be awarded any compensation by the British government (in the latter case poorly defended by Cherie Blair), surely our legal system is no longer impartial but instead cosily in bed with the government, literally in some cases? Is there any justice when the government acts with impunity and seems unanswerable to tax payers over Iraq and when only those in the legal and political arena close and sympathetic to the PM are given a voice or lent an ear? Why is the government spending so much time, money and energy on justifying its actions in Iraq which so clearly went against public opinion? Why are they so busy lobbying for a convicted rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist and British arms dealer to be acquitted of truly serious crimes and at the same time do not go nearly far enough to help those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay seek a fair trial? Instead the Home Secretary is fighting for even more draconian anti-terrorist laws. It beggars belief! This is no longer a true democracy we are living in. The proof of this is the tight control of the media and harsh humiliation for those who seek to uncover the truth. How did we slip down this slippery Orwellian slope so fast? Was it always on the cards or shall future historians put it all down to 9/11? We public elect our local MPs and government but they consistently choose not to listen to us. This steel wall is creating a sense of anger, frustration, apathy and general isolation for many of us and it is damaging our collective conscious. If people see no recourse for open and transparent public debate there is a danger that we soon become disenchanted with our leaders and resigned to authoritarian rule. And what is best way to escape our reality - look at other people's sorry reality though a tabloid like The Sun or through reality T.V. Its time for us to get real!

Documents have been found in the rubble of Iraq's intelligence service headquarters reportedly linking Saddam Hussein's regime and Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network. Journalists from the British Sunday Telegraph newspaper found documents revealing a meeting between an Al Qaeda (search) envoy and officials in Baghdad in March 1998. The newspaper reports that the meeting was set to establish a relationship between Baghdad and Al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred for the United States and Saudi Arabia (search). Bin Laden's name had been covered over in white correcting fluid, but the markings were removed. The envoy was described as a trusted confidante of bin Laden (search). The documents don't mention any meeting between bin Laden and Iraqi officials. The newspaper quotes an unidentified Western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational."
 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html

Wow, Fox News is that?!?! Because its sooo accurate. You know, they did a survey of US opinion about Iraq. A large percentage of Americans had the following misconceptions. That Saddam was behind September 11th. That Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda, even though he and Bin Laden were enemies. And now, it seems, the misconception that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. They found the more people watched FOX News, the more likely they were ot hold these misconceptions. In the words of Michael Moore 'The more you watched FOX, the stupider you got'.

But hey, this time it MUST be true. After all, Rupert Murdoch wouldn't want to mislead us, now, would he?

...the same people who brought you the "smoking gun" on Galloway. They've gone awfully quiet about both docs now: Galloway sued, but they successfully pleaded in court that "it was accurate to the best of their knowledge", a handy little dodge allowing you to say whatever you like if you can prove that you trusted the source of the allegation.

No prosecution can be brought against the US military propagandadists who passed the fake docs to the Telegraph though.

 http://www.newsinsider.org/madsta/inventing_evidence.html

Don't be so bloody naive.

"Pre-emptive war was invented by Adolf Hitler. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't take anyone who came up with such a thing seriously" - Dwight Eisenhower, 1953.


WE, THE PEOPLE, want JUSTICE and DEMOCRACY !
 http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/cgi-bin/show.cgi?nowar28

==========

From The Daily Mis-Lead
 http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1336442&l=17046

TENET EXPOSES BUSH'S MISLEADING ON WMD

In a stunning blow to the president's credibility, CIA Director George Tenet
said this morning that intelligence "analysts never said there was an
imminent threat" from Iraq before the war. His comments are consistent with
various warnings sent to the White House from the intelligence community
that specifically told the president his claims that Iraq definitely had
chemical/biological and nuclear weapons were unsubstantiated. Tenet's
comments call into question whether the Bush Administration was knowingly
ignoring intelligence and misleading the country by claiming definitively
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was therefore an "imminent,"
"immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" threat to the American people.

Though the White House has claimed it never said Iraq was an imminent
threat, the record proves otherwise. When White House communications
director Dan Bartlett was asked before the war whether Saddam Hussein was an
imminent threat, he responded, "Of course he is." When White House spokesman
Scott McClellan was asked why NATO (and thus the United States) should
support Turkey's request for defensive troops, he responded, "This is about
an imminent threat." When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked
whether the invasion of Iraq was because Iraq was an imminent threat, he
responded, "Absolutely."

The president also used other language aimed at misleading Americans into
thinking that U.S. intelligence definitively knew Iraq had weapons of mass
destruction that threatened America - even though the intelligence community
told the president it had no such evidence. The president said before the
war that Iraq was an "urgent threat" and a "grave threat" to "any American."
In his speech informing Americans that the invasion had started, the
President said Iraq "threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

These comments were echoed by other top Administration officials. Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said on September 19, 2002 that "no terrorist
state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people
and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq."
And Vice President Cheney called Iraq a "mortal threat," and said "there is
no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction...to use
against our friends, against our allies, and against us." And Secretary of
State Colin Powell, in pressing for U.N. support, said definitively that
Iraq possessed "deadly weapons programs" that "are real and present dangers
to the region and to the world."


See also:
Bush sabotages WMD commission before it starts
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/284923.html

==========

Reposted from Belgium IMC:
 http://www.indymedia.be/news/2004/02/80499.php

Powell in 2001 on Iraq's WMD's and Powell in 2004 on WMD's


2004

"US Secretary of State Colin Powell says he doesn't know if he would've
recommended an invasion of Iraq if he'd known there were no stockpiles
of banned weapons in the country."
 http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1037584.htm


2001

"On 24 February 2001, during a trip to Cairo, Egypt, Colin Powell told
the media Saddam "has not developed any significant capability with
respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project
conventional power against his neighbors."

Before "everything changed," Condi Rice admitted Saddam was no threat to
the United States. "We are able to keep arms from him," she told CNN Late
Edition With Wolf Blitzer on 29 July 2001. "His military forces have not
been rebuilt."
 http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040126Nimmo.shtml

==========

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass
destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."
- Paul Wolfowitz in Vanity Fair, May 28, 2003

==========

20/20 Vision Launches On-Line Petition Calling for Truly
Independent Investigation Before November Elections
 http://www.2020vision.org/peace/wmdpetition.html

(Poster note: The petition is in Flash only,
no text or html alternative provided.)

==========

WE, THE PEOPLE, want JUSTICE and DEMOCRACY !
 http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/cgi-bin/show.cgi?nowar28

In the article it says that ALL the residents in Oxford are furious, when i'm not and i can find you plenty of people who would agree.

Mick,

'The Oxford residents' here clearly refers to the Oxford residents who took the action,
not the hundred thousand or so people who live in Oxford, who clearly don't ALL agree
on anything. Don't be a pedant, its tedious.

Matt

As one of the posts so rightly said Democracy is failing us.

Lets start a discussion of ways to actually influence change on this
 https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/02/285014.html

Chakuwi

I was watching BBC World service in my guest house in Mazar, northern Afghanistan and thought I recognised the odd voice when the report on the disruption of Blair was shown.

Great!!! Make sure he can not avoid listening to the people.

I didn't read the article problem. My mistake. As for it being white paint, i can actually report it was actually mayonnaise. I know this because I tasted it.


Now where did I put that white spirit.

Stop the War Coalition:
 http://www.stopwar.org.uk