Gordon Brown fails to convince in the war of words

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Mar 7, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. From The Sunday Times
    March 7, 2010
    Gordon Brown fails to convince in the war of words

    Gordon Brown will no doubt be feeling quite pleased with his work of the past couple of days. Having survived four hours of questioning at the Chilcot inquiry into the war in Iraq, he promptly flew to Afghanistan to show solidarity with Britain’s troops.

    The message was clear. This was a man who did not drive the decision to invade Iraq but would not shirk his responsibility for it. This was a leader who would always back the armed forces, telling the troops in Helmand that the government would do “everything we can to support you with the equipment necessary and the resources you need”.

    The effect was rather different. The prime minister no doubt believes his performance at the Chilcot inquiry tiptoed neatly between loyalty to Tony Blair and making sure everybody knew who was responsible for invading Iraq. The question remains as to why such a powerful figure was apparently so marginal. Either Mr Brown understated his role or he deliberately absented himself, Macavity-like, knowing this was one to keep clear of.
  2. I read this article at the weekend as well.I cant help but think that if i lied so obviously ,I would have been 252 in a heart beat.Thats one less vote that will be going to the Labour party. Someone once said that all politicians are like prostitutes, I disagree . A prostitute is more honest in my oppinion.
  3. It stinks and reminds me of the medical analogy

    " Politicians are like nappies, and both should be changed frequently, and for the same reason"
  4. A lot of the problem is that technically he does not lie, rather he presents some of the facts in the way that suits his story best leaving out the bits that make his story look bad. I am sure that he can prove much of what he said is true, but for example what instructions were the military given as to how and what they could ask for.

    After all you can have every thing you aske for but if you are told in must not cost more than a tenner then you will not get very much and probably not what you really need. Gordon can say he gave you what you asked for and you can say you did not get what you needed. Both of you are telling the truth.

    Gordon has been playing this game for years and is very good at it, unfortunately and it will take a pretty smart man to actually catch him out. This is government by spin. You never actually get what you thought was on offer but they can prove you got what was promised.
  5. Well you tend to get your money's value out of a prostitute...and prostitution is at least a decent profession. Whores also don't take your money and then go and shag someone else either...well not unless that's what you were paying for.
  6. oldbaldy

    oldbaldy LE Moderator Good Egg (charities)
    1. Battlefield Tours

    Say he takes 1Billion from the Defence Budget. Leaves severe problems. Urgent need on ops for a piece of kit that in other circumstances would have been funded from that billion & costs say £300m. He says OK. He says he has given what was asked for but Defence Budget still down the swanny for £700m
  7. I thought that the piont was that we were getting everything that we wanted , as long as it didnt cost more than a tenner
  8. According to reports/research 'all' requests costing £10m & under were automatically given the green light by GB, the big flaw there is how many sigificant/major requests were fulfilled? not many me thinks, thats why the Senior top brass such as Mr Guthrie has contested/questioned the evidence GB gave,

    Well practiced performance of what you'd expect from him & the enquiry were soft on him IMO :x