...not as "daily" as the name suggests...
|
|
| The Daily Oh Really ...not as "daily" as the name suggests... |
|
|
Sunday, June 22, 2003 Yes they DID say the war was about WMDs, at the time Timeline clearly showing that the pre-Iraq war rhetoric was all about the WMDs and the links between Iraq and terrorism. Again from the SMH Online. Mainstream journos continue to front up and weigh in on the WMDs fraud: Marian Wilkinson for one...and from the other side of the street, Miranda Devine becomes ever more strident, ever more abusive towards the people who are now daring to ask - were we told the truth? Is it possible that the more hysterical her rhetoric becomes, the greater the possibility that she is afraid of the truth? Sorry Miranda, you live in a democracy. Go find yourself a dictatorship if you don't like questions, dissent, alternative opinions. Oh and please improve your prose. You're actually quite painful to read. posted by Jojo | 12:09 PM Our troops in combat before war declared General Tommy Franks has admitted that allied troops had control of 25% of Iraq before hostilites were declared on 20 March. This means (1) that force was in reality an invasion force, as war had not formally been declared; and (2) at the same time as John Howard was repeatedly telling the Australian public that troops had not yet been committed to the war, our troops were already in combat inside Iraq. From the usual source, SMH Online: Australian, US and British special forces took control of a quarter of Iraq before the war was officially launched on March 20, allied forces commander General Tommy Franks said yesterday. In an extraordinary statement that suggests Australians were engaged in the war prior to Prime Minister John Howard officially committing troops, General Franks said more than 50 12-member special forces units secretly entered the Iraqi desert before hostilities began. ...snip... The statement means that when Mr Howard was saying in mid-March that no decision had been taken on whether to commit Australian troops, they were already on the ground in active combat [that is, well before his March 18 announcement that troops had been committed. So at the same time as he was denying it, they were already fighting]. No wonder our Johnnie and his cohorts keep trying to peddle the line that the reasons for initiating the war are "primarily historical", and that there is no point trying to analyse them now. Not only was their justification for invasion a hoax, but now it looks as though they decided to give themselves a head start before letting the other side know about the commencement of hostilities. Is that even legal? "Primarily historical"? I might try that one if I'm ever in court for speeding tickets or parking fines. In fact, how is anyone ever convicted of a crime? All crime is "historical" by the time it's brought before a court. Even before the cops arrive on the scene. Hey Johnnie: crimes are never tried before they are committed, or even during commission (even crimes like conspiracy and attempt can only be tried after the planning or attempting has actually taken place). Not even war crimes, or offences against international law. posted by Jojo | 11:43 AM |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||