June 30, 2003
The Best And Brightest
National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said in London this week that Iraq's infrastructure turned out to be in "far worse shape" than expected, with parts of the country below Third World standards.
Uh, gee, Condi, you don't think that could have anything to do with a decade of the most punitive sanctions regime in history? Before the Gulf War, 87% of Iraqis had access to clean water, and 93% had access to free health care. You don't suppose there could be the smallest correlation between the arrival on the scene of the Americans and the degradation of the country's infrastructure?
But having gotten here, how to fix it? No problemo.
"The food production and distribution systems will need to be overhauled, moving them from a system of price controls and rationing to one based on free markets and individual choice.
"The commercial needs, the commercial regime will need to be revamped in order to encourage trade, promote investments and facilitate private enterprise."
You see, because these methods have been such a miraculous panacea for every other Third World country adhering at gun-point to IMF/World Bank strictures.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:21 AM
| Comments (1)
A Washington Post story detailing the "coalition"'s difficulties in "pacifying" Iraq lets the cat out of the bag in a few different places.
First, a former CentCom big-wig laments that, "If we don't get this operation moving soon, the opposition will continue to grow, and we will have a much larger problem." Does this sound like somebody who believes that the resistance is comprised only of "members of the old regime" on one hand, and "disgruntled Iraqis, upset about house searches or whatever" on the other?
Second, we learn that:
Because the war was so narrowly focused on Hussein's government in Baghdad, a large part of the Iraqi population does not feel as if it was defeated, said retired Army Col. Scott R. Feil. "As I heard one Iraqi say, the Americans defeated Saddam, but not the Iraqi people, so the psychology of the loser is not present," he said.
Ah, so the goal of the war was not to liberate the Iraqi population, but to defeat it. Well, that clears that up.
Meanwhile, the lovable Senator Lugar the other day thundered that, "The idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish! We're going to be there a long time." Oooookay. That's pretty explicit. Not to be outdone, a "senior military official in Washington" opines that, "You have to go in and tell them: 'We're gonna do what we did in Germany and Japan. We're gonna write your constitution. We're gonna install your government. We're gonna write your laws. We're gonna watch your every move for a decade, and then maybe you'll get a chance to do it yourself.'" (He forgot to add the "stupid niggers" parting shot.) Any other pre- and post-war pretexts yet to be officially disabused? WMD? Check. Al Qaeda link? Check. Welcomed with open arms? Check. Taking great pains to protect the civilian population? Check. Making America safer and/or dismantling worldwide terrorist networks? Check and check. Putting the kibosh on the most destructive weapons ever devised? Check. It's nothing to do with oil? Check. And now we can once and for all put the liberation of the brave people of Iraq angle to bed as well.
Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
June 29, 2003
By Any Other Name
A Washington Post story detailing the "coalition"'s difficulties in "pacifying" Iraq lets the cat out of the bag in a few different places.
First, a former CentCom big-wig laments that, "If we don't get this operation moving soon, the opposition will continue to grow, and we will have a much larger problem." Does this sound like somebody who believes that the resistance is comprised only of "members of the old regime" on one hand, and "disgruntled Iraqis, upset about house searches or whatever" on the other?
Second, we learn that:
Because the war was so narrowly focused on Hussein's government in Baghdad, a large part of the Iraqi population does not feel as if it was defeated, said retired Army Col. Scott R. Feil. "As I heard one Iraqi say, the Americans defeated Saddam, but not the Iraqi people, so the psychology of the loser is not present," he said.
Ah, so the goal of the war was not to liberate the Iraqi population, but to defeat it. Well, that clears that up.
Meanwhile, the lovable Senator Lugar the other day thundered that, "The idea that we will be in just as long as we need to and not a day more -- we've got to get over that rhetoric. It is rubbish! We're going to be there a long time." Oooookay. That's pretty explicit. Not to be outdone, a "senior military official in Washington" opines that, "You have to go in and tell them: 'We're gonna do what we did in Germany and Japan. We're gonna write your constitution. We're gonna install your government. We're gonna write your laws. We're gonna watch your every move for a decade, and then maybe you'll get a chance to do it yourself.'" (He forgot to add the "stupid niggers" parting shot.) Any other pre- and post-war pretexts yet to be officially disabused? WMD? Check. Al Qaeda link? Check. Welcomed with open arms? Check. Taking great pains to protect the civilian population? Check. Making America safer and/or dismantling worldwide terrorist networks? Check and check. Putting the kibosh on the most destructive weapons ever devised? Check. It's nothing to do with oil? Check. And now we can once and for all put the liberation of the brave people of Iraq angle to bed as well.
Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 07:34 PM
| Comments (0)
Lt. Colonel Ronnie McCourt reffering to the this week's ambush by pissed off Iraqis, which resulted in the deaths of six British soldiers, says that, "This attack was unprovoked. It was murder."
So, to define terms.
A retaliation by niggers against a force of white soldiers occupying their country -- in response to the occupiers having fired rubber bullets at a demonstration against invasive home searches -- shall be known as "unprovoked murder".
Meantime, an unprovoked, illegal, unilateral war and subsequent occupation killing tens of thousands of niggers (in the short-term) shall be known as "liberation".
Can you say, "Orwell walks among us"? I knew you could!
Incidentally, it is entirely within the bounds of International Law for an occupied people to mount attacks against occupying military forces. The specific language of General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." But then, International Law is deader than a doorknob these days.
June 26, 2003
Today's Language Lesson
Lt. Colonel Ronnie McCourt reffering to the this week's ambush by pissed off Iraqis, which resulted in the deaths of six British soldiers, says that, "This attack was unprovoked. It was murder."
So, to define terms.
A retaliation by niggers against a force of white soldiers occupying their country -- in response to the occupiers having fired rubber bullets at a demonstration against invasive home searches -- shall be known as "unprovoked murder".
Meantime, an unprovoked, illegal, unilateral war and subsequent occupation killing tens of thousands of niggers (in the short-term) shall be known as "liberation".
Can you say, "Orwell walks among us"? I knew you could!
Incidentally, it is entirely within the bounds of International Law for an occupied people to mount attacks against occupying military forces. The specific language of General Assembly Resolution 37/43 affirms "the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle." But then, International Law is deader than a doorknob these days.
Posted by Eddie Tews at 11:45 AM
| Comments (1)
A Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted June 18-22 may be as interesting for the questions it didn't ask as for those it did.
Asked: 56% would support military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not Asked: How many would support military action to prevent the United States from developing "mini"-nukes, or restarting production of plutonium warhead triggers? Or for "disarming" the United States entirely?
Asked: 67% approve of the way The Superbrain is "dealing with" Iraq. Not Asked: How many approve of the wholesale selling off of Iraq, primarily to U.S.-based business interests, many with close ties to members of the Bush Administration? How many approve of the occupiers' indifference to the plight of those it has "liberated" -- anarchy, economic deprivation, inadequate to non-existent services, scarce supplies, threat of epidemics of disease, & cetera? How many approve of the killing and detention of hundreds of unarmed Iraqis? How many approve of the occupation authorities setting up camp in Saddam's air-conditioned palaces, while the population suffers in the sweltering Iraqi heat? How many approve of the virtual outlawing of dissent in "liberated" Iraq?
Asked: 64% say the benefits of the war outweigh its costs. Not Asked: How many think that Americans have a right to determine whether the cost to Iraqis are outweighed by the benefits? How many think that Iraqis by and large suppose that the benefits of the war outweigh its costs? How many are fully aware of the costs (to Americans) of the war?
Asked: 25% think Iraq used chemical or biological weapons during the war (while an additional 15% aren't sure). Not Asked: How many people think the United States used nuclear weapons (in the form of "depleted" and/or non-"depleted" uranium munitions) in the war? How many think that radiation levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at "astonishing" levels? How many think the United States used an experimental weapon to fry Iraqi electrical grids during the war -- essentially a type of biological warfare, as it stymies water treatment facilities? (Maybe it didn't. But one surely must wonder why electricity is still dangerously sporadic throughout Baghdad.) How many think the occupiers allowed an Iraqi nuclear plant to be looted while they were busy protecting the oil Ministry -- so that there are now "frightening levels" of radioactivity in nearby villages? How many think Iraqis are still being blown up by American cluster bombs?
Asked: More than 60% think the war would be justified even if no WMD are found in Iraq. Not Asked: How many think an illegal, unprovoked, unilateral "disarmament" of the United States by some outside force would be justified? How many even if the Americans' "liberator" couldn't find any WMD after?
Asked: Fewer Democrats and Independents consider U.S. troop losses "acceptable", while the number of Republicans considering U.S. troop losses "acceptable" is unchanged from a previous poll. Not Asked: How many consider the number of Iraqi conscript and civilian losses -- well into the thousands, not of course including hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, who will contract cancer from the war's radioactive residue -- "acceptable"? How would Democrats' and Republicans' responses change if a Democrat were in office?
What You Can Do: Contact the Post's Ombudsman, requesting a more appropriate line of questioning for the next survey. It won't happen if we don't ask!
Some Questions Not Asked
A Washington Post-ABC News Poll conducted June 18-22 may be as interesting for the questions it didn't ask as for those it did.
Asked: 56% would support military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Not Asked: How many would support military action to prevent the United States from developing "mini"-nukes, or restarting production of plutonium warhead triggers? Or for "disarming" the United States entirely?
Asked: 67% approve of the way The Superbrain is "dealing with" Iraq. Not Asked: How many approve of the wholesale selling off of Iraq, primarily to U.S.-based business interests, many with close ties to members of the Bush Administration? How many approve of the occupiers' indifference to the plight of those it has "liberated" -- anarchy, economic deprivation, inadequate to non-existent services, scarce supplies, threat of epidemics of disease, & cetera? How many approve of the killing and detention of hundreds of unarmed Iraqis? How many approve of the occupation authorities setting up camp in Saddam's air-conditioned palaces, while the population suffers in the sweltering Iraqi heat? How many approve of the virtual outlawing of dissent in "liberated" Iraq?
Asked: 64% say the benefits of the war outweigh its costs. Not Asked: How many think that Americans have a right to determine whether the cost to Iraqis are outweighed by the benefits? How many think that Iraqis by and large suppose that the benefits of the war outweigh its costs? How many are fully aware of the costs (to Americans) of the war?
Asked: 25% think Iraq used chemical or biological weapons during the war (while an additional 15% aren't sure). Not Asked: How many people think the United States used nuclear weapons (in the form of "depleted" and/or non-"depleted" uranium munitions) in the war? How many think that radiation levels in Iraq and Afghanistan are at "astonishing" levels? How many think the United States used an experimental weapon to fry Iraqi electrical grids during the war -- essentially a type of biological warfare, as it stymies water treatment facilities? (Maybe it didn't. But one surely must wonder why electricity is still dangerously sporadic throughout Baghdad.) How many think the occupiers allowed an Iraqi nuclear plant to be looted while they were busy protecting the oil Ministry -- so that there are now "frightening levels" of radioactivity in nearby villages? How many think Iraqis are still being blown up by American cluster bombs?
Asked: More than 60% think the war would be justified even if no WMD are found in Iraq. Not Asked: How many think an illegal, unprovoked, unilateral "disarmament" of the United States by some outside force would be justified? How many even if the Americans' "liberator" couldn't find any WMD after?
Asked: Fewer Democrats and Independents consider U.S. troop losses "acceptable", while the number of Republicans considering U.S. troop losses "acceptable" is unchanged from a previous poll. Not Asked: How many consider the number of Iraqi conscript and civilian losses -- well into the thousands, not of course including hundreds of thousands, or perhaps millions, who will contract cancer from the war's radioactive residue -- "acceptable"? How would Democrats' and Republicans' responses change if a Democrat were in office?
What You Can Do: Contact the Post's Ombudsman, requesting a more appropriate line of questioning for the next survey. It won't happen if we don't ask!
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:56 AM
| Comments (0)
"It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are." -- Hans Blix
June 25, 2003
Quote Of The Moment #0001
"It is sort of fascinating that you can have 100 percent certainty about weapons of mass destruction and zero certainty of about where they are." -- Hans Blix
Posted by Eddie Tews at 04:22 PM
| Comments (0)
You've got to hand it to the Bush Administration. Even while they're digging up anthrax in Maryland, while Los Alamos can't account for all of its plutonium stocks and North Carolina teeters on the brink, while Congress has given the go-ahead for "mini-nukes" and production of nuclear triggers is set to resume, while at least a few people are speaking out about the poisoning of Iraq and Afghanistan for time immemorial, and, yes, while not a whiff of a banned weapons programme has yet been uncovered in Iraq; the Administration is not resting on its laurels.
Iran is, as we know, coming under much scrutiny for its nuclear weapons programme, a blockade of North Korea is under consideration and Richard Perle "can't rule out" a "surgical strike", Syria's back in the gun sights, and now Libya is being warned over its "pursuit of WMD". (Meanwhile, al-Qaeda may have pinched a 727 and, "As many as 30 suspected terrorists may still be in the United States because of continuing flaws in the county's visa program and poor communication between federal agencies." But, you know, boys will be boys.)
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the Bush Administration isn't "agressively pursuing" nuclear armageddon, one must conclude that it's probably bluffing. (How else explain the confluence of the bluster with new warnings lamenting Dubya's "imperial over-stretch" -- specifically that "our policy in Afghanistan is definitely on track to fail," and that Iraq's reconstruction is "in chaos"? ) Or more likely that it figures that the world will put up a few contrary bleats, then capitulate just as fully as it did over the slaughter of Iraq.
Shall we prove the Administration wrong?
June 22, 2003
Chutzpah
You've got to hand it to the Bush Administration. Even while they're digging up anthrax in Maryland, while Los Alamos can't account for all of its plutonium stocks and North Carolina teeters on the brink, while Congress has given the go-ahead for "mini-nukes" and production of nuclear triggers is set to resume, while at least a few people are speaking out about the poisoning of Iraq and Afghanistan for time immemorial, and, yes, while not a whiff of a banned weapons programme has yet been uncovered in Iraq; the Administration is not resting on its laurels.
Iran is, as we know, coming under much scrutiny for its nuclear weapons programme, a blockade of North Korea is under consideration and Richard Perle "can't rule out" a "surgical strike", Syria's back in the gun sights, and now Libya is being warned over its "pursuit of WMD". (Meanwhile, al-Qaeda may have pinched a 727 and, "As many as 30 suspected terrorists may still be in the United States because of continuing flaws in the county's visa program and poor communication between federal agencies." But, you know, boys will be boys.)
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that the Bush Administration isn't "agressively pursuing" nuclear armageddon, one must conclude that it's probably bluffing. (How else explain the confluence of the bluster with new warnings lamenting Dubya's "imperial over-stretch" -- specifically that "our policy in Afghanistan is definitely on track to fail," and that Iraq's reconstruction is "in chaos"? ) Or more likely that it figures that the world will put up a few contrary bleats, then capitulate just as fully as it did over the slaughter of Iraq.
Shall we prove the Administration wrong?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 10:18 AM
| Comments (1)
At least, that appears to be the case.
In the last week, the United States has again taken up the task of unleashing its military hardware upon defenceless Iraqis -- demonstrating that "free" niggers are still, when all is said and done, just niggers.
At the same time, Senator Lugar has intimated that American troops may be needed to "root out the terrorism that is at the heart of the problem" in the Occupied Territories, the Pentagon is "sensing" that "Africa is a continent that is going to be of very, very significant interest in the 21st century," and John Bolton has promised "not just to prevent the spread of WMD, but also to eliminate or 'roll back' such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that already possess them or are close to doing so."
This is in addition to the military's already active role in Afghanistan, Colombia, and the Philippines; as well as standing menace toward Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Libya, and of course North Korea (while Bushonomics, Guantanamo's Death Row, and Ashcroft's PATRIOTism and should suffice to wreck the lives of the niggers with the audacity to remain living on American soil post-September 11).
June 17, 2003
Pentagon's Dream: Simultaneous Slaughtering Of Niggers On All Continents
At least, that appears to be the case.
In the last week, the United States has again taken up the task of unleashing its military hardware upon defenceless Iraqis -- demonstrating that "free" niggers are still, when all is said and done, just niggers.
At the same time, Senator Lugar has intimated that American troops may be needed to "root out the terrorism that is at the heart of the problem" in the Occupied Territories, the Pentagon is "sensing" that "Africa is a continent that is going to be of very, very significant interest in the 21st century," and John Bolton has promised "not just to prevent the spread of WMD, but also to eliminate or 'roll back' such weapons from rogue states and terrorist groups that already possess them or are close to doing so."
This is in addition to the military's already active role in Afghanistan, Colombia, and the Philippines; as well as standing menace toward Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Libya, and of course North Korea (while Bushonomics, Guantanamo's Death Row, and Ashcroft's PATRIOTism and should suffice to wreck the lives of the niggers with the audacity to remain living on American soil post-September 11).
Posted by Eddie Tews at 12:32 PM
| Comments (1)
There was talk (wishful thinking, most likely) at the time of the Brown and Kiesling resignations that Colin "This is bullshit" Powell -- representing the "moderate" or "honorable" wing of the Bush Administration -- ought to do the same. Powell quickly put the kibosh on the rumours, and that was that.
But since the public now knows that Powell was well aware that the "evidence" that he was tasked to demonstrate before the United Nations in February was "bullshit", one can't help wonder whether he might be reconsidering? If he gets out now, while the gettin's still good, he may, by positioning himself as an honest man pressured into a life of deceit, greatly enhance his political future while bringing down an Administration one can only presume he's mightily uncomfortable serving under.
On the other hand, maybe he would be perceived as a back-stabbing Uncle Tom. But even that would be no worse than his likely fate if he decides to go down with the ship: he'd undoubtedly be marked for life as an accomplice to one of the uglier conspiratorial plots in U.S. history (or, worse yet, he and Condi Rice might be sacrificed on Jayson Blair's altar when Dick Cheney goes looking for scapegoats).
Ah, nothin' like idle speculation on a Saturday afternoon...
June 07, 2003
Go The Distance
There was talk (wishful thinking, most likely) at the time of the Brown and Kiesling resignations that Colin "This is bullshit" Powell -- representing the "moderate" or "honorable" wing of the Bush Administration -- ought to do the same. Powell quickly put the kibosh on the rumours, and that was that.
But since the public now knows that Powell was well aware that the "evidence" that he was tasked to demonstrate before the United Nations in February was "bullshit", one can't help wonder whether he might be reconsidering? If he gets out now, while the gettin's still good, he may, by positioning himself as an honest man pressured into a life of deceit, greatly enhance his political future while bringing down an Administration one can only presume he's mightily uncomfortable serving under.
On the other hand, maybe he would be perceived as a back-stabbing Uncle Tom. But even that would be no worse than his likely fate if he decides to go down with the ship: he'd undoubtedly be marked for life as an accomplice to one of the uglier conspiratorial plots in U.S. history (or, worse yet, he and Condi Rice might be sacrificed on Jayson Blair's altar when Dick Cheney goes looking for scapegoats).
Ah, nothin' like idle speculation on a Saturday afternoon...
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:32 PM
| Comments (1)
An April 22 Salon article discussing the disappearance of the Iraqi army, concluded with the following paragraph:
Wamid Nathmi, a political scientist who used to be regarded as something as close to an opposition figure as one could get in Iraq, has made a 180-degree turn and now subscribes to paranoid theories about how Baghdad could have fallen. At first, he says, he blamed "traitors," but now he hints that Americans used some new and terrible weapon, "maybe a limited-scale nuclear device," against the soldiers defending the International Airport. "Go to the airport," he urges. "The Americans keep it closed to everybody, and I have heard there are hundreds or thousands of dead Iraqi soldiers there who have been burned all over, not shot. That is how they were able to defeat us."
This is the one and only time (to this blogger's knowledge) that such a claim has been adduced. Yet, two months later, the airport remains closed to civilian traffic. The reason, stated over the "coalition"'s Baghdad radio station on the weekend, is that planes trying to land are coming under fire from "members of the former regime who want to undermine the rebuilding campaign." The "coalition", rather than using the massive military and reconaissance capabilities at its disposal is asking for members of the general public to come forward with any information about the alleged shooting at of planes!
Totally preposterous. Also at odds with other reasons given: the "antiquated electronics": are not up to "international standards", and "U.S. military and business contractors are filling bomb craters on the main runways and bringing the airport up to international standards". Neither does it take into account that the "coalition" is operating a "fortress-style" detention center at the airport.
The suggestion of a "new and terrible weapon" doesn't seem very credible, if only because eyewitness survivors ought to have surfaced before now. But it would seem that something fishy is going on there. Any ideas?
June 02, 2003
Say What?
An April 22 Salon article discussing the disappearance of the Iraqi army, concluded with the following paragraph:
Wamid Nathmi, a political scientist who used to be regarded as something as close to an opposition figure as one could get in Iraq, has made a 180-degree turn and now subscribes to paranoid theories about how Baghdad could have fallen. At first, he says, he blamed "traitors," but now he hints that Americans used some new and terrible weapon, "maybe a limited-scale nuclear device," against the soldiers defending the International Airport. "Go to the airport," he urges. "The Americans keep it closed to everybody, and I have heard there are hundreds or thousands of dead Iraqi soldiers there who have been burned all over, not shot. That is how they were able to defeat us."
This is the one and only time (to this blogger's knowledge) that such a claim has been adduced. Yet, two months later, the airport remains closed to civilian traffic. The reason, stated over the "coalition"'s Baghdad radio station on the weekend, is that planes trying to land are coming under fire from "members of the former regime who want to undermine the rebuilding campaign." The "coalition", rather than using the massive military and reconaissance capabilities at its disposal is asking for members of the general public to come forward with any information about the alleged shooting at of planes!
Totally preposterous. Also at odds with other reasons given: the "antiquated electronics": are not up to "international standards", and "U.S. military and business contractors are filling bomb craters on the main runways and bringing the airport up to international standards". Neither does it take into account that the "coalition" is operating a "fortress-style" detention center at the airport.
The suggestion of a "new and terrible weapon" doesn't seem very credible, if only because eyewitness survivors ought to have surfaced before now. But it would seem that something fishy is going on there. Any ideas?
Posted by Eddie Tews at 08:47 PM
| Comments (1)
Tony Blair, while maintaining that finding evidence of WMD is "not the most urgent priority", continues to insist that he has "absolutely no doubt" that evidence of Saddam's WMD programme will in time turn up because, get this, "Saddam’s history of weapons of mass destruction is not some invention of the British security services."
Uh, has anybody at any point in time denied Saddam's "history of weapons of mass destruction"? Even if we interpret "history" to mean a history of intransigence with regards to weapons inspectors, Blair's reassurances leave much to be desired. The high-level claims of Saddam's ongoing WMD programme weren't based on "history", they were (supposedly) based on hard intelligence. You know, Colin Powell and the satellite imagery.
If Tony Blair has "absolutely no doubt", then on what evidence -- other than Saddam's "history" -- does he base his "no doubt"? And if Hans Blix was "starting to suspect", before the war, that there were no weapons, why didn't Blair share his "no doubt" evidence with UNMOVIC?
Blair also claims to have evidence "which is not yet public" because he is waiting to "assemble" it and then "present it properly". This of course raises the question whether repeatedly heralding a "possible" WMD find, only to quietly announce a few days later that it was just pesticide, should be considered a "proper" presentation of "evidence".
Not that there has ever been any "doubt" that Tony Blair's been lying straight out of his fucking hole. But does he really need to insult our collective intelligence with such obviously illogical claptrap?
No Doubt
Tony Blair, while maintaining that finding evidence of WMD is "not the most urgent priority", continues to insist that he has "absolutely no doubt" that evidence of Saddam's WMD programme will in time turn up because, get this, "Saddam’s history of weapons of mass destruction is not some invention of the British security services."
Uh, has anybody at any point in time denied Saddam's "history of weapons of mass destruction"? Even if we interpret "history" to mean a history of intransigence with regards to weapons inspectors, Blair's reassurances leave much to be desired. The high-level claims of Saddam's ongoing WMD programme weren't based on "history", they were (supposedly) based on hard intelligence. You know, Colin Powell and the satellite imagery.
If Tony Blair has "absolutely no doubt", then on what evidence -- other than Saddam's "history" -- does he base his "no doubt"? And if Hans Blix was "starting to suspect", before the war, that there were no weapons, why didn't Blair share his "no doubt" evidence with UNMOVIC?
Blair also claims to have evidence "which is not yet public" because he is waiting to "assemble" it and then "present it properly". This of course raises the question whether repeatedly heralding a "possible" WMD find, only to quietly announce a few days later that it was just pesticide, should be considered a "proper" presentation of "evidence".
Not that there has ever been any "doubt" that Tony Blair's been lying straight out of his fucking hole. But does he really need to insult our collective intelligence with such obviously illogical claptrap?