Iraq War: the public were misled by “devices and tactics”

#1
Ed Balls interview: Iraq war was a mistake

His greatest criticism is reserved for the Iraq war, which still saps Labour support. Mr Balls today becomes the first former Cabinet minister unequivocally to condemn the invasion, claiming the public were misled by “devices and tactics”.

“People always felt as if the decision had been made and they were being informed after the fact.” Though not yet elected as an MP, Mr Balls – as Mr Brown’s adviser – was party to top level discussions after attempts to get a second UN Security Council resolution failed.

“I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it. It wasn’t really true, you know. I said to Gordon: 'I know why you’re doing this, but you’ll regret it’. France is a very important relationship for us.”

Although Mr Balls concedes that, had he been an MP at the time, he would have voted for the war on the basis of the facts provided, he now concedes that not only was the information wrong but the war unjustified.

“It was a mistake. On the information we had, we shouldn’t have prosecuted the war. We shouldn’t have changed our argument from international law to regime change in a non-transparent way. It was an error for which we as a country paid a heavy price, and for which many people paid with their lives. Saddam Hussein was a horrible man, and I am pleased he is no longer running Iraq. But the war was wrong.”

Cont/...
 
#3
Anyone would think there's a party leadership race on.
 
#4
Liars, dullards and thieves whose integrity is available if political currency can be gained.
 
#5
FFS, you only needed to listen to Hans Blix and Scott Ritter (2 men whose integrity has never been successfully challenged), and compare their view of the world with the thin stuff being peddled by B'liar on behalf of The Shrub, to have reasonable doubt.

You only had to read and consider the statements made by both those men after their cosy tete-a-tete - was it in the preceding Feb - to deduce they had already made up their minds.

Wise after the event? Gutless and ambitious at the time?

Where was integrity when it was needed?
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#6
This is just "official" conformation of what the majority of the British public already knew!
This fiasco has done more harm than good in more ways than you can care to imagine.
Finally, if Balls confession "that the Government of the day deliberately coned the nation into going to war", could this admission now warrant legal action??
 
#8
Wow and it only took 7+ year's for their conscience to surface....
 
#9
“I was in the room when a decision was taken that we would say it was that dastardly Frenchman, Jacques Chirac, who had scuppered it
LOL.....................
 
#10
My my so now it was the UK public who declared war after being Deceived.
Yes all you blood thirsty citizens screaming out for blood while Poor old Tone could only accede to your demand.

john
 
#11
Deny, lie and deflect. Standard operating procedure of scum.
 
#12
Would be more convincing if Balls had grown a pair at the time and resigned like Robin Cook.

In any case Balls still seems to think of the Iraq war primarily as a legal error forever conceived in sin because it lacked the necessary Security Council paper work rather than a serious strategic pratfall with a considerable butchers bill. Idiots who still promote such views should not be trusted to lead a boy scout troop let alone a political party.
 
#13
Neither Balls or Miliband were MPs at the time, yet have since served as Ministers.

That says it all about the last administration, in fact, much of public service. Experience and proven competence mean nothing, as long as you exhibit no original thought and follow the party line.
 
#14
What an unspeakable little cnut. Despite not being an MP at the time he was part of the inner circle of advisors when the decision was taken and, as an MP, he was one of the few that argued for the Iraq Inquiry to be held in public. If he was aware of the public being misled by "tactics and devices" he should have offered his knowledge as Evidence. The fact that he didn't proves what a cowardly, unprincipled, bottom-feeding liar he really is. Utter scum.
 
#15
bakersfield said:
Neither Balls or Miliband were MPs at the time, yet have since served as Ministers.

That says it all about the last administration, in fact, much of public service. Experience and proven competence mean nothing, as long as you exhibit no original thought and follow the party line.
And were an eager part of the party machine when we blunder towards Baghdad.

They were not making any waves at the time as far as I can recall. That's been the behavior of most careerists in Brit politics since the purge of the Tory 'wets' in 81. It's a very bad thing. The Eds are now mouthing platitudes playing tyo the woolly consensus in the Labor base.

Cameron's sleek, spin happy New Tories are hardly better. This is now called party discipline, the whips will hound any off message dissenter.
 
#16
I am no fan of Dave.


David Cameron will rue the day he betrayed the Conservatives
As I have argued for the last four-and-half years, Dave is not actually a Conservative, writes Simon Heffer.


By Simon Heffer
Published: 5:09PM BST 21 May 2010

David Cameron will rue the day he betrayed the Conservatives.

"How sad do we think Dave is at being made to ditch the remotely Conservative parts of his election manifesto in order to stay in his loveless marriage with the Liberal Democrats? I look at him on his many celebrity public relations appearances – for they are all he seems to do these days – and he looks pretty cheerful. Indeed, he appears to be bearing the blow of ditching the reform of badly-drafted human rights legislation, having to maintain inheritance tax, forcing swingeing rises in capital gains tax and abandoning the party's pledge to support married families surprisingly well.

Of course he is: because, as I have argued for the last four-and-half years, Dave is not actually a Conservative. Like the late and unlamented Sir Edward Heath, he is a technocrat, a bureaucrat and a manager. He is interested only in power, rather than in principle. I always suspected he would prove this the moment he was through the door of No 10 and, by golly, he has.

He still has his supporters in his party, despite having betrayed them by giving the country a Liberal Democrat government, and they will be fulminating if they have read this far. So be it. For the vast majority who voted Tory on May 6, the feeling is different. Can they honestly say that this is what they thought they were voting for if they ended up putting Dave in Downing Street? Of course not.

Dave's supporters reject such criticism as unfair, because he didn't know he would have to have a coalition. I would remind them of two points. First, Dave failed to win an overall majority because he fought a shocking campaign against the worst prime minister since Ted Heath, and with a record of economic failure that exceeded even the Grocer's. Second, he did not need to have a coalition even then. Both Labour and the Lib Dems are nearly broke. The last thing either wants is another election now. Once Gordon Brown had realised the game was up and resigned, all Dave had to do was to meet parliament with a Queen's Speech based on his manifesto – which itself was so un-Conservative that there was little in it the other parties could find offensive – and dare them to vote it down. They wouldn't have dared, and Dave, admittedly against all his instincts, could have tried to govern as a Conservative.

However, I don't think he wanted to. The opportunity to rule with his natural soulmates in the Lib Dems meant he could at last try to put the people he despises most – the "Right" of his own party who do have genuine Conservative principles – back in their box. Any attempt at Conservatism can be shunted off into a siding, or pushed over a cliff, with the excuse that the Lib Dems won't wear it. Absurdities routinely happen, like Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, removing screeds of offensive remarks about the Lib Dems from his Twitter page because we are all lovey-dovey now. (I am not sure what is the more preposterous – Mr Hunt's humiliating himself by agreeing to rewrite history in this Stalinist way, or a supposedly grown and intelligent man like him tweeting in the first place.)

Dave will rue the day – and rue it sooner rather than later, I suspect – for rubbing the nose of so much of his party in it like this. The 118 backbenchers who voted against the emasculation of the 1922 Committee show just what he will be up against; I trust, as Norman Tebbit has suggested, that they will form a 2010 Committee, and carry on reminding their leader that we do not yet live in a dictatorship. Dave's outrageous disregard of his party's values requires far more scrutiny, not less."

john
 
#19
Stonker said:
FFS, you only needed to listen to Hans Blix and Scott Ritter (2 men whose integrity has never been successfully challenged), and compare their view of the world with the thin stuff being peddled by B'liar on behalf of The Shrub, to have reasonable doubt.

You only had to read and consider the statements made by both those men after their cosy tete-a-tete - was it in the preceding Feb - to deduce they had already made up their minds.

Wise after the event? Gutless and ambitious at the time?

Where was integrity when it was needed?
Agreed 100%.
 
#20
Attention seeking little shite heads, who would show their arres in public to get an inch of newsprint
 

Latest Threads

Top