Tony Blair admits WMD did not exist

Published on September 29, 2004 By Solitair In Politics

In a party conference speach aimed yesterday Tony Blair finally admitted that he got it wrong and that Saddam did not have WMD in 2003. To quote,

'The evidence about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong.
I acknowledge that and accept it.'

For the prime minister of the UK to finally admit that WMD did not exist is a major step. He has access to more information and data than anyone short of George Bush. He has finally admitted that Saddam told the truth when he denied having WMD.

Will WMD proponents on JoeUser do the same? Will Bush do the same?

Paul.

Comments

lambda-why

on Sep 29, 2004

Ask the bugger to tell this in front of the Mother who lost her son,the wife who lost her husband and the child who'll never seee daddy again..what do u tell the chlld who lost his father?

"Your father died uselessly...." it'll all be forgotten soon and nobody'll give a fuck...

Bahu Virupaksha

on Sep 29, 2004

Both Bush and Blair knew right from the beginning thatt there were no WMD in Iraq. They did not give a chance to Dr Hans Blix and his team of inspectors to find out the Truth, lest they are deprived of the chance to grab the oil fields. This is the first War in modern times that has been waged without any justification.

dabe

on Sep 29, 2004

If I new that the NIger report was a forgery before we marched off to war, and it was all over the internet, so I did know, you can be sure as shit that Bush and Blair also knew. THEY KNEW IT. Those SOB's. They were fully aware, but they risked life and limb of soldiers and the population of Iraq in the march to war. One thing I'd bet on, though. Bush may admit it, but not before the election. God, I hate that guy. I really do.

drmiler

on Sep 29, 2004

Reply #3 By: dabe - 9/29/2004 5:54:26 AM
If I new that the NIger report was a forgery before we marched off to war, and it was all over the internet, so I did know, you can be sure as shit that Bush and Blair also knew. THEY KNEW IT. Those SOB's. They were fully aware, but they risked life and limb of soldiers and the population of Iraq in the march to war. One thing I'd bet on, though. Bush may admit it, but not before the election. God, I hate that guy. I really do

You may hate him, it's your right. But if he don't mess up in the debates get ready for "4 more years!". He was ahead by a minimum of 8 points in ALL the polls yesterday.

rugbyshawn

on Sep 29, 2004

Debunk time....

Reply #4 By: Citizen drmiler

He was ahead by a minimum of 8 points in ALL the polls yesterday.

9/28 polls
Rasmussen Daily Report: Bush by 2
TIPP: Kerry by 1
ABC: Bush by 6
Gallup: Bush by 8
Pew: Bush by 8
So it looks like Bush was actually ahead by a maximum of 8pts which is very different than a minimum!!!

MSNBC electoral Bush 217-Kerry 200 (rest are tossup)
Center for Politics Bush 284-Kerry 254 (by assigning tossups to a candidate)
Bush 133-Kerry 194 (when only keeping strongholds)

Other polls from the last week....
Fox/Opinion Dynamis: B45-K43
Time: B49-K45

Based on MoE, it appears that Bush has a slight lead over Kerry with Center for Politics saying it is probably a 5 point lead and saying the race is still too close to call.

drmiler

on Sep 29, 2004

Reply #5 By: rugbyshawn - 9/29/2004 9:37:28 AM
Debunk time....

Reply #4 By: Citizen drmiler

He was ahead by a minimum of 8 points in ALL the polls yesterday.

9/28 polls
Rasmussen Daily Report: Bush by 2
TIPP: Kerry by 1
ABC: Bush by 6
Gallup: Bush by 8
Pew: Bush by 8
So it looks like Bush was actually ahead by a maximum of 8pts which is very different than a minimum!!!

MSNBC electoral Bush 217-Kerry 200 (rest are tossup)
Center for Politics Bush 284-Kerry 254 (by assigning tossups to a candidate)
Bush 133-Kerry 194 (when only keeping strongholds)

Other polls from the last week....
Fox/Opinion Dynamis: B45-K43
Time: B49-K45

Based on MoE, it appears that Bush has a slight lead over Kerry with Center for Politics saying it is probably a 5 point lead and saying the race is still too close to call.

Debunk this: The fact still remains he's been gaining ground in the polls while Sen. "debate with himself" Kerry has been *losing* ground. Again....

If he don't mess up in the debates get ready for "4 more years!".

Madine

on Sep 29, 2004

I think Bush has acknowledged that Iraq didn't have WMD stockpiles. I don't think he has used the word "wrong" though.

rugbyshawn

on Sep 29, 2004

Drmiler, once again you miss the point...I didn't say Kerry wasn't losing ground. In fact, I said that....

it appears that Bush has a slight lead over Kerry with Center for Politics saying it is probably a 5 point lead and saying the race is still too close to call.

I said that your assertion of an 8pt minimum lead in all the polls was wrong. Then I proved it. Then you could not refute it.

The only conclusion that I made was that based on the electoral college the election is still too close to call which anyone not overly blinded by partisan rhetoric realizes that is true. Remember, the winner of the popular vote does not win the presidency (it shouldn't be too hard to remember, after all the last time that happened was in 2000!).

The "shaking my head" part comes from this not being the first time that you have been shown to cherry pick polls or misrepresent them. Again, one poll does not make the election. The polls give a general guide for the direction of the race over time (and number of polls).

drmiler

on Sep 29, 2004

The "shaking my head" part comes from this not being the first time that you have been shown to cherry pick polls or misrepresent them. Again, one poll does not make the election. The polls give a general guide for the direction of the race over time (and number of polls).

You are correct you didn't and I would like to apologize for making the *assumption*. But on the otherhand I don't *cherry pick* polls either. The 2 major polls are Gallup and Pew. These are the 2 most respected polls. And are the *only* ones I look at. I have too much to do to waste time looking at every Tom, Dick and Harry poll.

rugbyshawn

on Sep 29, 2004

I apologize since I didn't realize that you only looked at the two polls. If you want to see all of the polls in one quick table by date go here....

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html

This one shows that for the last week Bush has approximately a 6 pt. lead (although it's about 3.4 pt [w/in MoE] for the battleground states) and the other good thing is that you can see how the race has shaped over the last couple months just by quickly scrolling down the table.

Rasmussen has just put out it's latest electoral numbers Bush 213 Kerry 196 with the rest being a tossup so this falls pretty closely in line with MSNBC.

Solitair

on Sep 30, 2004

Lads, can we drop the US politics and polls debate or start another thread for it.

lambda-why, I should probably have stated that Tony Blair went on to say that he still believed the war was right even with no WMD and will not apologise for removing Saddam Hussein. So he would have joined the US in the war from the start. That's getting him in lots of problems today as people are accussing him of joining the war while telling the population something else.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!