Brown to announce Iraq War inquiry

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#2
interesting timing - can cyclops be looking to shift the spotlight onto teflon tony?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#3
maguire said:
interesting timing - can cyclops be looking to shift the spotlight onto teflon tony?
I'd put money on it. Good f*cking move though....maybe Tony shouldn't have bad mouthed him. Reckon that this was always going to be Brown's ace up the sleeve?

I hope it's true. I want to see Bliar squirming.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#4
Biscuits_AB said:
maguire said:
interesting timing - can cyclops be looking to shift the spotlight onto teflon tony?
I'd put money on it. Good f*cking move though....maybe Tony shouldn't have bad mouthed him. Reckon that this was always going to be Brown's ace up the sleeve?

I hope it's true. I want to see Bliar squirming.
oh my god yes... get that grinning, slippery, slimy little spiv sh1t and get him to account for the mess it turned out to be for everyone.
 
#5
I can only interpret this as a last throes martyrdom action targeting the scheming Blairista clique and to wipe that smug grin off Mr Tony's lying orange mug.

May seventy management consultants greet him in a the public-private partnership of free market heaven. Allāhu Akbar Haji Broon!
 
#6
All I can say is about fcuking time.

OK cyclops is trying to take the heat off himself and drop his Tonyness in the sh1te, but this should have been done within weeks of him becoming dictator, I mean PM.
 
#7
Biscuits_AB said:
maguire said:
interesting timing - can cyclops be looking to shift the spotlight onto teflon tony?
I'd put money on it. Good f*cking move though....maybe Tony shouldn't have bad mouthed him. Reckon that this was always going to be Brown's ace up the sleeve?

I hope it's true. I want to see Bliar squirming.
Hammer. Nail. Head!

And if there is God in Heaven please let the Wide Mouthed Frog be involved. However what is the betting that "sensitive US provided Intelligence which cannot be divulged etc etc etc ....." comes into play.
 
#8
No doubt as a taxpayer I will be paying for this feckin inquiry to tell all of us what we already know. Sure it would be nice to see Bliar and his cronies squirm but I would have preferred to see it many years ago!
 
#9
BOTH of them should be bought to book imho,and not just on Iraq either.The's the shoddy kit,the decision to use Snatch Landies,ect to name two.
Spike
 
#10
Bound_Apprentice said:
No doubt as a taxpayer I will be paying for this feckin inquiry to tell all of us what we already know. Sure it would be nice to see Bliar and his cronies squirm but I would have preferred to see it many years ago!
Agree about the waste of millions of taxpayers money.

The reason for our involvement was simply to stand by the US and ensure they weren't going it alone. Anything else was used to try and justify our part in other ways

Odo
 
#11
Any inquiry into the Iraq fiasco is going to take years to come to resolution, just look at what happened with the Bloody Sunday inquiry, still not reported over 10 years since convening, and anyone who thinks that this government hasnt shredded evidence that may be "controversial" is fooling themselves. Gordon Brown will be history before this inquiry reports.
 
#12
Don't get your hopes up, there is a world of difference in announcing that an inquiry will be held, then actually having the bollox to get one started, (still waiting for our referendum on the Lisbon Treaty are we not?) but the most interesting part in all of this is what the terms of reference would be.
They will be so narrow and restrictive so as to totally meaningless, so the man who writes the terms of reference that the inquiry is about pretty much writes the report, they can and will not be strayed from.
Too many porkies told, far too many witnesses still in post (and available) and evidence recoverable if the terms of reference was to be a bit on the actual "inquiry" side of things and it was a real inquiry like a murder investigation, to go where the evidence takes you.
We can only dream.
As someone (in Africa I think) once said when asked of his chances in the next election, "It is not who gets the most votes that wins, but the man who counts them."
A bit like the geezer that decides what exactly the inquiry should be all about in terms of reference.
Wonder who that would be then?
 
#13
Given the Saville inquiry is still going on, and is, in essence, dealing with a single day's events, I imagine that Brown and Blair could be long dead by the time this inquiry reports - watch the terms of reference start with inquiring into the success of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and their reports, the No Fly Zones, Desert Fox, failure of the oil for food progamme and only then, in about 2025 and several hundred million quid later, getting onto the dodgy dossier, etc, etc - before eventually blaming God for telling George and Tony that they had to do it....
 
#14
Archimedes said:
Given the Saville inquiry is still going on, and is, in essence, dealing with a single day's events, I imagine that Brown and Blair could be long dead by the time this inquiry reports - watch the terms of reference start with inquiring into the success of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC and their reports, the No Fly Zones, Desert Fox, failure of the oil for food progamme and only then, in about 2025 and several hundred million quid later, getting onto the dodgy dossier, etc, etc - before eventually blaming God for telling George and Tony that they had to do it....
Often, as here, the most valid and important points are those made reductio ad absudum.

Brown's statement is no more than a 'headline-grabbing' political gesture devoid of substance.

Any inquiry would be conducted in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005, a pernicious piece of Stalanist New Labour legislation under which the investigation of culpable acts or omissions on the part of the executive are investigated by the executuve, and a finding arrived at - by the executive! Condemned internationally it is designed for the sole purpose of converting fact to fiction and to arrive at a finding favourable to the Government.

You can write off the truth the moment any of its provisions are invoked and you can bet that it will remain in force, unrepealed by whatever government achieves power in the next election.
 
#17
Iolis said:
Often, as here, the most valid and important points are those made reductio ad absudum.

Brown's statement is no more than a 'headline-grabbing' political gesture devoid of substance.

Any inquiry would be conducted in accordance with the Inquiries Act 2005, a pernicious piece of Stalanist New Labour legislation under which the investigation of culpable acts or omissions on the part of the executive are investigated by the executuve, and a finding arrived at - by the executive! Condemned internationally it is designed for the sole purpose of converting fact to fiction and to arrive at a finding favourable to the Government.

You can write off the truth the moment any of its provisions are invoked and you can bet that it will remain in force, unrepealed by whatever government achieves power in the next election.
Justice Peter Cory, formerly a Judge in the Canadian Supreme Court was commissioned by the British and Irish Governments to investigate state collusion in some high profile murder cases (the Pat Finucane case in particular etc) was somewhat scathing of this Act stating:

it seems to me that the proposed new Act would make a meaningful inquiry impossible. The Commissions would be working in an impossible situation. For example, the Minister, the actions of whose ministry was to be reviewed by the public inquiry would have the authority to thwart the efforts of the inquiry at every step. It really creates an intolerable Alice in Wonderland situation. There have been references in the press to an international judicial membership in the inquiry. If the new Act were to become law, I would advise all Canadian judges to decline an appointment in light of the impossible situation they would be facing. In fact, I cannot contemplate any self-respecting Canadian judge accepting an appointment to an inquiry constituted under the new proposed Act.
It was voiced that this legislation should be referred to as Public Inquiries Cover-up Bill

In short this Act would facilitate the following:

the inquiry and its terms of reference would be decided by the executive; no independent parliamentary scrutiny of these decisions would be allowed;

each member of an inquiry panel, including the chair of the inquiry, would be appointed by the executive and the executive would have the discretion to dismiss any member of the inquiry;

the executive can impose restrictions on public access to the inquiry, including on whether the inquiry, or any individual hearings, would be held in public or private;

the executive can also impose restrictions on disclosure or publication of any evidence or documents given, produced or provided to an inquiry;

the final report of the inquiry would be published at the executive's discretion and crucial evidence could be omitted at the executive's discretion, "in the public interest".

An Act designed to tip the balance, despite an inquiries findings, firmly in favour of the government.
 
#18
Some good points (as always). Tend to see this as Brown playing a last throw ace onto the table, and after the last week's news headlines and Blair's responses, I guess the gloves are off. Like Biscuits_AB, I too would like to see some of our senior statesment squirm. At the same time, HTB's comments re the timelines between any announcement and actual action are spot on regarding this government. So, no excitement anytime soon. Although, it will be interesting to see what leaks (if only Ashie is around ARRSE to comment) out from Blair's camp and various other quarters between announcement and any conclusions published.

Which kinda brings us onto mad_mac's comments regarding the remit and executive appointments...

Problem that Gordon has on this one, is that both he, and his previous master, have made many statements regarding the openess and transparency of any inquiry into TELIC. Their rhetoric throughout, has been to defer any inquiry whilst any BRITFOR are still in Iraq. So, although the inquiry act, and the detail of what the act allows, would appear to favour HMG in ensuring a fudge, as per mac's analysis (good one btw); The deferment line, may well be the one that puts HMG under the most media pressure to ensure more of a public remit, as opposed to something that absolves Messr's Blair, Brown, Hoon & Co. from any accountibilty.

Whilst those on ARRSE, who have the T-Shirt, see through the crap, and can pick the holes out of the ministerial jaw clattering, I have a feeling that our voice will be fairly quiet when compared to the vast ranks of journalists, reporters, researchers and producers throughout the news media, who have been lied to, fecked off at the high port and now have massive axes to grind.

This isn't going to be handled by a bit of Whitehall bar smooshing, there are some key people, who really are going to take Brown (and Blair) to task over any inquiry. Unlike the ARRSE massive (and we do manage to get our views into the media when it matters), some of the very people that this Labour government (and Blair's previously) have made twats of, are about to make them reap what they have sown (albeit, in some cases nerly 7 years later).

Interesting times. What's needed at the moment the inquiry is announced, is for a national news media to set out it's own inquiry remit which (depending on the size or colour of your daily / Sunday paper), will see Gordon and Tony squirm to a greater or lesser degree. I mean, let's face it, we have seen the government cave in, change policy and generally responding to what's appearing in print - if one of the broadsheets did this, Gordon would be bound to agree to it - he's not in a position not to!
 
#19
Another expensive, irrelevant waste of tax-payers money, that will absolve all politicians and 'spin doctor' of any blame.

It is likely that it will report that Mrs. Thatcher was to blame together with 'eighteen years of Tory rule'.

A recommendation is likely to be that T.Bliar is given an earldom for 'services to the Services, and 'Stalin' Brown to be given a knighthood for 'saving tax-payers' money' by starving the Armed Forces of the necessary funding for Bliar's illegal adventure.
 

Alsacien

MIA
Moderator
#20
As if anyone will trust the result of an inquiry instigated by this government, under the leadership of someone picked by this government, and the [filtered] results released by this government....
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top