"Sorry about that": UK Minister apologizes for faulty intelligence

[Cyrus]

The British minister insisted that the decision to invade (which was based on WMD intellignece) was still "correct" even though she admitted that the WMD intellignece was faulty and that she, and Tony Blair, and everybody else in the government, were (quote) sorry about that.

I don't know which is worse: That she is obviously unwilling to construct a logically consistent statement --or-- the lack of similar apologies from Washington.

CNN Report : British Minister Apology Over Iraq Intelligence (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1322815,00.html)



<font color="white"> . </font>

[GWB]

What is worst: your assumption that WMDs matter much in the war against Terror.

The War on Terror is about defending us against all terror, both high-tech WMDs and low tech methods.

I do not want an American President needing to apologize for allowing more terror deaths to occur because he didn't do enough to stop it.

My administration has done all it can to stop terror, I doubt that Kerry would do so, and that is truly scary.

[Cyrus]

"WMDs [don't] matter much in the war against Terror."

Well, they do matter, actually, as even your administration keeps (correctly) reminding us. If the terrorists get ahold of WMDs, the damage will be so much worse. Or didn't you realize this, Mr President?

...Mr President? (...It appears he is thinking his answer through.)

OK in the meantime: Second, it appears that you lied to the American people, Mr President. Instead of apologizing for being wrong on the WMDs, you insist that the war against Iraq was still justified even if its official justification proved to be totally wrong.

...Mr, President, are you awake, sir?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
"WMDs [don't] matter much in the war against Terror."

Well, they do matter, actually, as even your administration keeps (correctly) reminding us.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did write this unclearly. I meant to say, WMDs are not the only method of terrorism, focusing only on them is a big mistake. Terrorism matters, Saddam supported terrorism, whether WMDs were in his hands or not is a phony issue when considering whether we should be fighting a War on Terror in places like Iraq that supported terror.

My writing above is still muddled, but your attempt to focus on one tiny piece of our War on Terror does a dis-service to the entire effort.

[GWB]

Note that the British apology was for faulty intelligence, not for conducting a War against Terror whereever we find it, including Iraq.

Kerry would have us scale back our efforts, and that would eventually cause him to have something really important to apologize for.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
I did write this unclearly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he is the real Bush.

[Bez]

Tony Blair convinced Parliament to go to war on the premise of the existance of WMDs. Many believe that the Government purposefully 'sexed up' the intelligence to push the country towards war. Whether going to war was right or not, how come Tony Blair has not yet resigned in disgrace (Anthony Eden style)? Could a democratic country's leader do anything worse than take his/her country to war under false pretences?