jack straw is a lying, weazely little bastard.



he says it doesn't matter if no "weapons of mass destruction" are ever found in iraq, it was ok to kill all those children anyway 'cos hans blix said the weapons were there.



odd. i seem to recall hans blix saying that the iraqis had destroyed, under u.n. control, their banned weapons and that there were absolutely none in any of the places that colin powell said there were in his famous lying speech to the u.n.



blix' only accusation against the iraqis was that they were failing to co-operate as well as he'd have liked, not that they were failing to destroy the weapons or to declare them.



straw says that the existence of chemical and biological protection suits in iraq means that the iraqis had chemical and biological weapons. no. it means they had protection suits. perfectly reasonably, they feared that the u.s. and u.k would use chemical and biological weapons against them. after all, donald runsfeld said they would.



straw is a liar.



he knows that this war was about oil, power, influence and, above all else, the americans building an empire. it was also about the pathetically vain tony "baby-killer" bliar crawling up george w bush's arse. he's pathetically attempting to cover up his previous lies with more. he's an absolute disgrace. if it were my decision, the little cunt would be out on the streets without a penny - and especially without a big, fat state-provided pension.

---

ben russell at the independent asks 'so, mr straw, why did we go to war?'.



some more of straw's weasel words are that 'iraq had illegal possessions of mass destruction and had them recently'. whether "possessions" is what he said or whether russel meant "weapons" is open to conjecture, but the fact is that 'had them recently' suggests that there is some real evidence to support the accusations about iraq's banned weapons.



there is none. straw is a liar. and bears an uncanny resemblance to the beano's plug.