...not as "daily" as the name suggests...
|
|
| The Daily Oh Really ...not as "daily" as the name suggests... |
|
|
Friday, June 20, 2003 "Honourable" deception From yahoo news: Clare Short has accused the Prime Minister of an honourable deception over the reasons for going to war with Iraq. They keep telling us it the Iraq invasion was an honourable thing. Taken from Tom Tomorrow, here's a snapshot of the honourable treatment we enlightened Westerners have bestowed upon those barbarians in Iraq: Specialist Corporal Michael Richardson added: "There was no dilemma when it came to shooting people who were not in uniform, I just pulled the trigger. "It was up close and personal the whole time, there wasn't a big distance. If they were there, they were enemy, whether in uniform or not. Some were, some weren't." Describing the scene during combat Richardson admitted shooting injured soldiers and leaving them to die. He said: "S***, I didn't help any of them. I wouldn't help the f******. There were some you let die. And there were some you double-tapped." Making a shooting sign with his hand he went on: "Once you'd reached the objective, and once you'd shot them and you're moving through, anything there, you shoot again. You didn't want any prisoners of war. You hate them so bad while you're fighting, and you're so terrified, you can't really convey the feeling, but you don't want them to live." And despite there being no link between Iraq and the September 11 attacks Richardson admitted that it gave him his motivation to fight Iraqis. "There's a picture of the World Trade Centre hanging up by my bed and I keep one in my flak jacket. Every time I feel sorry for these people I look at that. I think, 'They hit us at home and, now, it's our turn.' I don't want to say payback but, you know, it's pretty much payback." posted by Jojo | 1:30 PM Inquiring minds The UK Parliamentary Inquiry into whether Iraq's WMD threat was deliberately exaggerated, as a justification for invading Iraq, is underway. Australia's Alan Wilkie, the senior defence analyst who resigned bcause his conscience wouldn't let him continue working for our Johnnie, has spoken before the inquiry. Johnnie continues to deny, deny, deny. But he has progressed a little further along the daisy chain of ownership of this problem, stating two days ago that he "still believes" the intelligence he was shown, was accurate. I'm sure he'll be "very disappointed" when he "discovers" the intelligence wasn't on the level. So let's see, his position is: after all those meetings with the CIA and the Bush administration, he was powerless to do anything but take ASIO's reports at face value. Poor Johnnie, how was he supposed to know what was really going on? posted by Jojo | 9:11 AM |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||