Originally Posted by Nehustan

Originally Posted by CQMS

The News of the World, that mighty tome of honesty and integrity.

That point was also touched upon by the BBC. They did go on to say that St. James's while not confirming the story, did not deny it.

(edited to add, I think the court response was that the piece was 'speculative')

Could this be because they NEVER comment on stories of this nature?

Originally Posted by EScotia

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Blair is a legend. He got me an extra three campaign medals! :D

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Think you mean Leg End though

Nob end got me crippled oh and a nice medal though.

Originally Posted by whyohwhy

I'd have been impressed with all these people creaking out of the wood work if they'd managed to sway Blair at all. But they didn't. Despite their influence they achieved nothing. That's their failing. They watched as Blair amassed his power and influence. I'm not really interested in hearing them all cry 'I was terribly against it all you know' from the comfort of Blair having gone.

Bunch of weak spineless has-beens.

Absolutely spot on!!!

Originally Posted by Whet

Originally Posted by Nehustan

Originally Posted by CQMS

The News of the World, that mighty tome of honesty and integrity.

That point was also touched upon by the BBC. They did go on to say that St. James's while not confirming the story, did not deny it.

(edited to add, I think the court response was that the piece was 'speculative')

Could this be because they NEVER comment on stories of this nature?

But they did comment, they said the story was 'speculative'.

I wouldn't be suprised if the Prince opposed it. He never hesitates to throw his influence around if he's for of against things. It's quite contraversial, but I'm all for it. As much as I appreciate the role the Queen has taken, in being completely above politics, Charles has lobbied for some good things with positive results, among them: The environment, decent architecture, cures to social ills. The list goes on. Unfortunately, it does also include homeopathy...

Originally Posted by cunny_funt

Originally Posted by whyohwhy

I'd have been impressed with all these people creaking out of the wood work if they'd managed to sway Blair at all. But they didn't. Despite their influence they achieved nothing. That's their failing. They watched as Blair amassed his power and influence. I'm not really interested in hearing them all cry 'I was terribly against it all you know' from the comfort of Blair having gone.

Bunch of weak spineless has-beens.

Absolutely spot on!!!

Why is it spot on? You have a speculative story about Prince Charles actually trying to influence the decision at the time and one from John Major who said he was uneasily about the decision to go to war but was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, my own feelings were the same as John Major's. I didn't think the Iraq War was a good idea but believed the Government most know more than they were telling us.

The most damaging thing to come out of all this is the erosion of public trust in the Government. The problem is, how on earth is Government going to regain the trust of the British people, especially following the expenses scandal and economic situation?

If you want to play politics, you have to get results. If not, what's the point? Saying 'I told him not to do it' is only good in a playground.

My comment was targetted more at John Major, who's ramblings the other day about bad men etc sounded more like him trying to justify his life than any serious comment.

But Charlie's decided to allegedly speak out. Unfortunately, the only thing his occasional dabblings into politics have shown anyone is that he's not very good at it. So you told him not to do it and he ignored you? Some think, great guy. I think, why were you so politically inept you left it at that? Why not speak to John Major and tell him the 45 min WMD thing he'd given Blair the benefit of the doubt over was a ludicrous issue even if it were true? Why not use his many contacts to actually drive a result? Or would that have been too much effort? Better to do the minimum and say 'I tried'?

Is he surprised Blair ignored him? I would it I were PM.

Blair's got to answer for the decisions he made. But the string of people now denouncing him and 'clarifying' their earlier positions is pathetic. Sure, Blair's the main fall guy, but he got away with it because everyone let him. If you're going to get involved in politics - do it properly.

Originally Posted by PsyWar.Org

Originally Posted by cunny_funt

Originally Posted by whyohwhy

I'd have been impressed with all these people creaking out of the wood work if they'd managed to sway Blair at all. But they didn't. Despite their influence they achieved nothing. That's their failing. They watched as Blair amassed his power and influence. I'm not really interested in hearing them all cry 'I was terribly against it all you know' from the comfort of Blair having gone.

Bunch of weak spineless has-beens.

Absolutely spot on!!!

Why is it spot on? You have a speculative story about Prince Charles actually trying to influence the decision at the time and one from John Major who said he was uneasily about the decision to go to war but was prepared to give the Government the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, my own feelings were the same as John Major's. I didn't think the Iraq War was a good idea but believed the Government most know more than they were telling us.

The most damaging thing to come out of all this is the erosion of public trust in the Government. The problem is, how on earth is Government going to regain the trust of the British people, especially following the expenses scandal and economic situation?

Now that is spot on. at the time I didn't believe that they would lie to us over something that impotant. How disilusioned and disappointed can you get!?

Originally Posted by whyohwhy

If you want to play politics, you have to get results. If not, what's the point? Saying 'I told him not to do it' is only good in a playground.

My comment was targetted more at John Major, who's ramblings the other day about bad men etc sounded more like him trying to justify his life than any serious comment.

But Charlie's decided to allegedly speak out. Unfortunately, the only thing his occasional dabblings into politics have shown anyone is that he's not very good at it. So you told him not to do it and he ignored you? Some think, great guy. I think, why were you so politically inept you left it at that? Why not speak to John Major and tell him the 45 min WMD thing he'd given Blair the benefit of the doubt over was a ludicrous issue even if it were true? Why not use his many contacts to actually drive a result? Or would that have been too much effort? Better to do the minimum and say 'I tried'?

Is he surprised Blair ignored him? I would it I were PM.

Blair's got to answer for the decisions he made. But the string of people now denouncing him and 'clarifying' their earlier positions is pathetic. Sure, Blair's the main fall guy, but he got away with it because everyone let him. If you're going to get involved in politics - do it properly.

Personally I found Major's comments interesting partly as an ex-PM he had similar thoughts to myself and many others at the time. Although an unsuccessful PM, he did always seem, to me at least, one of the more honest and genuine politicians.

Charles is damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The Monarchy is supposed to be part of the checks and balances in safeguarding our Democracy, so in issues of this importance it is right they take some involvement. It is just even more depressing that even Royal persuasion could do nothing to influence the Government's decision process.

Originally Posted by PsyWar.Org

...part of the checks and balances in safeguarding our Democracy, so in issues of this importance it is right they take some involvement. It is just even more depressing that even Royal persuasion could do nothing to influence the Government's decision process.

snipped for brevity.

I'm also wondering at how many others with military service who sought time with Blair to air their concerns got anything other than a cursory audience?

Given Number 10's poor handling of paperwork / shredders shipped into the Cabinet Office during the annointing of PM Brown, it could be hoped that the inquiry will investigate who those people were, who were cautioning Blar against mil action?

Records tend to be kept of this sort of thing, or was our former PM too busy drafting his future "role" to dot the i's and cross the t's?

I guess the predictions are out for the former PM to do something of a "right to remain silent" routine, or to display the poorest memory for any British PM when sat under the lights.

It shouldn't surprise any of us (if the HRH story is based in fact) that Blair paid little attention, his blueprint for UK Foreign Policy and the most questionable judgement is going to see him a laughing-stock before long.

Sadly, in the eyes of many around the world, British citizens are "guilty by association" for voting the inexperienced fool into office.