ljh in the dock? precursor to a war crimes trial?

the following is from ABC Online


Independent MP Andrew Wilkie wants former prime minister John Howard to explain to a parliamentary inquiry why Australia sent troops to Iraq in 2003.

At the time, Mr Wilkie was an intelligence officer with the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and resigned his post because he said the Government had no evidence Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

World leaders, including former US president George W Bush, British prime minister Tony Blair and Mr Howard all gave Iraq's possession of such WMDs as a reason for the invasion - a claim which was later discredited as no such weapons were ever found.

In March 2003 Mr Howard gave a major speech to the National Press Club saying with great force that the central issue in the case for disarming Iraq was the danger that it would provide Islamic terrorists with the means to attack with weapons of mass destruction.

But despite suggestions from within government that he would support the claim with evidence, he was unable to produce new intelligence.

Mr Wilkie, now a powerful independent MP, says an inquiry is needed to examine the "behaviour" of Mr Howard and former foreign minister Alexander Downer.

"They have never been made to sit down and explain why they, over many, many weeks if not months, argued about weapons of mass destruction and terrorism when it was very quickly apparent that that official case for war was a lie," Mr Wilkie told AM.

He denied he was "settling old scores" with the former political figures, saying he had "won the argument" in 2003.

"The day I resigned about a week before the invasion, I said that the WMD program was disjointed and contained, that there was no evidence of links to terrorists and that we were invading a country on a lie," he said.

"I won the argument back then. All I'm trying to do is to have these people - the prime minister at the time John Howard, the foreign minister at the time Alexander Downer - they should front a committee.

A spokesman for Mr Howard told ABC News Online he had no comment.

I was not a fan of Howard in the latter years of his leadership, but I don't see what earthly good this would achieve.

It will give Wilkie a 'pissing in a wetsuit' experience I suppose. He'll get a nice warm feeling but it won't make a bit of difference.

Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

Zat wrote:I was not a fan of Howard in the latter years of his leadership, but I don't see what earthly good this would achieve.

It will give Wilkie a 'pissing in a wetsuit' experience I suppose. He'll get a nice warm feeling but it won't make a bit of difference.

You're right Zat, Wilkie's proposal would be a waste of time and resources. Howard should be fronting a trial in The Hague.

That it was a war crime is dodgy.

Perhaps, but there are many who deserve to have that tested.

a Royal Commission would do the trick...evidence obtained may also have application at the hague...Wilkie's then masters in spookdom would also be quizzed...

Bradman wrote:Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

How can you be so sure? The seppo spooks had the whole western world (apart from Wilkie and Hans Blix(sp?)) that Saddam had WMDs and that Hans was just too inept to find them.

Mick Sawyer wrote:

That it was a war crime is dodgy.

Perhaps, but there are many who deserve to have that tested.

Agreed but there are many who don't want it tested and one day they might be in the same position. The last white guy to face judgement for war crimes was Breaker Morant. (And he was guilty)

"I said that the WMD program was disjointed and contained"

I thought no WMDs or evidence of them was found ...so even Wilkie's analysis was wrong ...



or did the US invade just to get their invoices and shipping bills back?

over 100,000 civilian deaths from the invasion onwards and many more wounded...infrastructure and economy wrecked...a country torn asunder...terrorism accelerated...Blair, Bush and ljh had absolutely no pretext to invade

Bradman wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

That it was a war crime is dodgy.

Perhaps, but there are many who deserve to have that tested.

Agreed but there are many who don't want it tested and one day they might be in the same position. The last white guy to face judgement for war crimes was Breaker Morant. (And he was guilty)

AD won't be happy to hear that his hero Geobbels was of colour

G.Wood wrote:

Bradman wrote:Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

How can you be so sure? The seppo spooks had the whole western world (apart from Wilkie and Hans Blix(sp?)) that Saddam had WMDs and that Hans was just too inept to find them.

He had a lot of advice including that from a current member of the WA (whatever they call parliament in WA) thingy who was also the ops officer of the SAS during Siev X and was on in the preliminary planning for "Let's Get Revenge For Daddy" in 2003. According to his staement, carried in the national press he ran around Ft Campbell asking for targets only to be told to "just have your boys have a poke around as we can't find any yet".

embee wrote: "I said that the WMD program was disjointed and contained"

I thought no WMDs or evidence of them was found ...so even Wilkie's analysis was wrong ...



or did the US invade just to get their invoices and shipping bills back?

Hey! I used that line on the ABC forum at the time.

G.Wood wrote:

Bradman wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

That it was a war crime is dodgy.

Perhaps, but there are many who deserve to have that tested.

Agreed but there are many who don't want it tested and one day they might be in the same position. The last white guy to face judgement for war crimes was Breaker Morant. (And he was guilty)

AD won't be happy to hear that his hero Geobbels was of colour

OK! I deserved that. I meant to preface it with "apart from Nuremburg". But at least both trials were the same sort of farce despite yhe latter being necessary.

maybe that was why Flugge and the other war heroes at the Oz Wheat Board turned up in Baghdad

Wilkie - what a farkstick.

Yes S...but right about Iraq and ljh

A total farkin showboating waste of time on the tool's part. Does he believe an Inquiry would be tax-payers money well spent?

horace wrote:Yes S...but right about Iraq and ljh

ONA guys get all the raw stuff as well. So he'd be in the know.

G.Wood wrote:

Bradman wrote:Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

How can you be so sure? The seppo spooks had the whole western world (apart from Wilkie and Hans Blix(sp?)) that Saddam had WMDs and that Hans was just too inept to find them.

You might want to Google; "Joseph C Wilson"

skully wrote:A total farkin showboating waste of time on the tool's part. Does he believe an Inquiry would be tax-payers money well spent?

I'd say he does.

Bradman wrote:

horace wrote:Yes S...but right about Iraq and ljh

ONA guys get all the raw stuff as well. So he'd be in the know.

His opinion derived from the analysis was less incorrect than the rest of ONA who's opinion ljh relied on

Mick Sawyer wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Bradman wrote:Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

How can you be so sure? The seppo spooks had the whole western world (apart from Wilkie and Hans Blix(sp?)) that Saddam had WMDs and that Hans was just too inept to find them.

You might want to Google; "Joseph C Wilson"

I still don't get how that makes it the great man's lie.

G.Wood wrote:

Mick Sawyer wrote:

G.Wood wrote:

Bradman wrote:Most of this sh#t's still up in the air h. That he knowingly lied is a lay down misere. That it was a war crime is dodgy.

How can you be so sure? The seppo spooks had the whole western world (apart from Wilkie and Hans Blix(sp?)) that Saddam had WMDs and that Hans was just too inept to find them.

You might want to Google; "Joseph C Wilson"

I still don't get how that makes it the great man's lie.

What did McGrath have to do with Iraq?

embee wrote:

Bradman wrote:

horace wrote:Yes S...but right about Iraq and ljh

ONA guys get all the raw stuff as well. So he'd be in the know.

His opinion derived from the analysis was less incorrect than the rest of ONA who's opinion ljh relied on

Is that like being half pregnant?