Clare Short plunges the knife in

#1
If you have got some spare time today, tune in to Clare Short's evidence to the Inquiry, highly entertaining. And of course completely different to the version of events provided by Blair and Goldsmith.
 
#3
She is now taking a swipe at military chiefs whom she states should not have agreed to go to war because they didn't have the equipment in place. Her reasoning being no state of emergency existed.

Over to Jackson??
 
#4
Mr_Deputy said:
buttonsin3s said:
She really has got it in for Blair and his cronies
I always found it odd that she resigned two months after backing the Iraq War in 2003. She called Tony etc reckless but still voted for war. She also back action against them thurr Serbs.

Self-serving politician or old school party faithfull or bit of both?
Female + politician, what a mix :evil: back on track, she seems a bit of both IMO.
 
#5
buttonsin3s said:
Mr_Deputy said:
buttonsin3s said:
She really has got it in for Blair and his cronies
I always found it odd that she resigned two months after backing the Iraq War in 2003. She called Tony etc reckless but still voted for war. She also back action against them thurr Serbs.

Self-serving politician or old school party faithfull or bit of both?
Female + politician, what a mix :evil: back on track, she seems a bit of both IMO.
In her memoirs she claims it was because TB promised her a key role in re-building Iraq. And because she didn't want to leave her department.

I would say that that is fairly self serving - especially when held in contrast to the likes of Robin Cooke. Short knew that had she resigned before the war TB wouldn't have been able to go - but she was bought off with promises from Blair.

But for all the promises made she herself failed completely to prepare her department for rebuilding Iraq and is a major part of the problem.
 
#6
Mr Deputy,

She says she was promised a leading role in the reconstruction of Iraq (as International Development Secretary). This didn't (and still hasn't) happened. I would go for your third option.

Shiny.
 
#7
she got bribed failry easily to go along with something she belived was wrong the left call her "bomber short" .
blair belived he was doing what was right and still does. Short belived it was wrong but when push came to shove prevaricated till it was too late lack of moral courage was the old saying. :x
 
#8
I'm suprised she hasn't been suicided/heart attacked/mountain-dropped yet. She must have something special on the dark-lord... :wink:

CW

Quis Separabit
Vestigia Nulla Retrorsum
 
#9
Well I never thought I would see the day that Robin Cook was held up as a principled icon while the opposite, self-serving end of the scale is embodied by Clare Short. Truly if you stay around long enough you will see everything!

It is amazing how everyone is hanging onto the issue of the timeline on this enquiry. As if at each "phase-line" a right and wrong switch can be operated?! I think quite a few people were foxed into staying with the war in 2003 programme by artful conniving Tony and his eminence grise, Rumba of Rio. They found themselves promised a lovely ethical war of regime change, democracy and reconstruction but - shock! horror! probe!- got a box issue Middle Eastern clusterfukc about oil for their trouble.

I fear many of the old-to-older school Labour ministers have been revealed to be as naive as the League of Nations invited to a sudetenland themed wine and cheese party by Adolf Hitler. Which is surprising and gratifyingly so, considerign the way they used to practise constituency and council politics in the olden days.
 
#10
Hoon-unprincipled
Straw-unprincipled
Goldsmith-weak and unprincipled
Short- weak but finally principled
Brown-unprincipled

Blair-mad as a hatter
Campbell-the sanest of the lot, nasty piece of work
 
#11
Note that she says that Brown was 'preoccupied' with other concerns.

Now, I find that rather worrying. What, after all, concentrates most peoples minds? War?
So what could possibly be more important than the country that has entrusted you with a great office of State going to war?
Clare Short says:
"He was saying to me 'They think they're going to have a quick and successful war and then they'll be very powerful and they'll have a reshuffle'.

"He thought they wanted him out of the Treasury, because there was tension about how you spend the money of the government, and they were going to offer him the Foreign Office and he was saying 'I won't accept it. I'll go and join you on the back benches.'"


There we have it. His own position, in the chokehold of the Treasury.
Most politicians would give their eye teeth for a major department like Foreign Secretary, but not Gordon. I think he was terrified. That's a job that requires you to talk to people, and not sit like a spider in a web and bu**er up everyone else's departments, until you can walk into Tony's job.
He knew that he wouldn't be able to hack it, and that's why he would have run away to the back benches.
So, what on earth made him think that the job of PM would be any easier?
 
#12
Cuddles said:
Well I never thought I would see the day that Robin Cook was held up as a principled icon while the opposite, self-serving end of the scale is embodied by Clare Short. Truly if you stay around long enough you will see everything!
I don't think anyone is holding him up a a principled icon. However, on this issue he made a principled stand. His resignation speech was a stunning attack on the reasons for war; which only he was able to stand for.

(edited for mongness)
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#13
nigegilb said:
Hoon-unprincipled
Straw-unprincipled
Goldsmith-weak and unprincipled
Short- weak but finally principled
Brown-unprincipled
Blair-mad as a hatter
Campbell-the sanest of the lot, nasty piece of work
Clare Short was - personally - personally - responsible for ensuring that DfID personnel were forbidden to enter Iraq until well after the War was over (even though one or two brave ones did). She has a lot to answer for in the aftermath, as regards the lack of a coherent response to the chaos in and around Basra. If it hadn't been for the lead of the Army, and a decent amount of help (initially) by the UN, the place would have been far worse off than it was. DfID were useless, and it was all her fault.

Principled? Her? My Arrse.
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#14
I was on a radio discussion show with her a couple of months ago and if I didn't know that it was impossible for such a bold tribune of the people to behave in such a way, I'd have said she was shit-faced. At 8.40am.
 
#15
Robin Cooks resignation was a key turning point in the conflict with Iraq. Claire Shorts' prevarication made a bad situation worse and for that she should be hanging her head in shame. Her spinning and trying to blame everyone-but-poor-little-her smacks of Nuremburg.
 
#16
I am referring in narrow terms to her decision to resign. I agree there is more than a whiff of suspicion that she was playing politics with her Department's lack of action. She is still giving evidence explaining her decisions, her argument rests on the fact that there was no money to take on the mission and that the Govt plan was to go for a UN resolution to enable IMF money to fund re-development.

Hoon knew that 4 months was not enough time to procure and distribute essential equipment but chose not to resign. He was warned of last safe windows of procurement for ECBA but still chose not to resign.

I am no fan of Clare Short, but she did eventually resign. She has displayed far higher principles than ANY other Labour Minister bar Robin Cook. The rest of them were far too happy to carry on taking the ministerial purse.

What the fcuk would DfID have achieved anyway? There was no security there was no plan. What the fcuk have they achieved in Afg with a wad full of money?
 

cpunk

LE
Moderator
#17
nigegilb said:
What the fcuk would DfID have achieved anyway? There was no security there was no plan. What the fcuk have they achieved in Afg with a wad full of money?
Why was there no plan? Because Clare Short wouldn't let DfID get involved in planning until there was a 'second resolution'. What Iraq needed was reconstruction to hit the ground running as the invasion rolled through: what it got was fcuk all.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#18
nigegilb said:
What the fcuk would DfID have achieved anyway? There was no security there was no plan. What the fcuk have they achieved in Afg with a wad full of money?
That they've done anything at all in Afg has been down mainly to USA money. They object bitterly to spending in Afghanistan on 'principle' (I was told by one of their senior bods there that "It shouldn't really be a priority, compared with India and Pakistan) and what they do spend they either try to spend through the Govt (i.e. most gets ripped off) or in other Provinces than Helmand (Saffron production). Pretty useless - thank God for the Stab Unit, who bring a bit of 'reality' to the situation.
 
#19
The lack of planning can be blamed on disastrous assumptions made by the American Govt and the utter failure of Blair to raise British concerns with his American counterpart.

It is frankly hilarious that you are trying to blame Clare Short.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#20
'What the fcuk would DfID have achieved anyway? There was no security there was no plan. What the fcuk have they achieved in Afg with a wad full of money?'

just perhaps, if the locals could see that people did indeed care about them and ther wellbeing, there would not have been *quite* so many people prepared to join the insurgents. it certainly wouldnt have stopped everyone, but it may have given a few people pause.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top