TCH bolts the stable door - 4 years late

#1
TCH, demonstrating that he is a master of understatement, has admitted that mistakes were made over Iraq.

BBC News


Mr Hoon also expressed regret over the government's claim in the run-up to war that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which, he now accepts, turned out to be false.

He said he had "gradually come to the acceptance" the weapons did not exist but insisted the government had acted in good faith.
 
#2
News, it is?? :?

And Queen Anne's dead, too, by the way . . . . .
 
#3
Last 2 paragraphs from the BBC article:
Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "clear" where the responsibility lies for Iraq, adding: "The President made the decisions, the prime minister argued the case, the chancellor signed the cheques and the Tories voted it through."

Mr Blair replied that Saddam Hussein would still be in power if Liberal Democrat policy had been followed.
The man, Blair, clearly is self-deluded. If Lib Dem policy had been followed, the US would have invaded regardless. Or is he suggesting a Lib Dem PM would have had more influence than he at the Whitehouse?

The only difference is that we would not have been part of the cluster fcuk formerly known as Iraq.
 
#5
'Buff' by name, 'Buff' by nature. Sweet Jesus, Cromwell had the right idea.
 
#6
whitecity said:
Last 2 paragraphs from the BBC article:
Sir Menzies Campbell said it was "clear" where the responsibility lies for Iraq, adding: "The President made the decisions, the prime minister argued the case, the chancellor signed the cheques and the Tories voted it through."

Mr Blair replied that Saddam Hussein would still be in power if Liberal Democrat policy had been followed.
The man, Blair, clearly is self-deluded. If Lib Dem policy had been followed, the US would have invaded regardless. Or is he suggesting a Lib Dem PM would have had more influence than he at the Whitehouse?

The only difference is that we would not have been part of the cluster fcuk formerly known as Iraq.
I don't think thats true. Bush would have had a lot harder time just going gung ho by himself. With "AN other country" on board it made it a multinational force for the good rather than bush getting his war on the cards!
 
#7
Oneshot said:
I don't think thats true. Bush would have had a lot harder time just going gung ho by himself. With "AN other country" on board it made it a multinational force for the good rather than bush getting his war on the cards!
Blair's decision to follow Bush into Iraq may well have give the 'illusion' (or delusion) of interntaional legitimacy. However, the US was more than prepared to go it without UK participation as evidenced by Rummy's remarks in March 2003.

Q: Sir, support for a possible war is shrinking rapidly in Great Britain. Would the -- two questions. Would the United States go to war without Great Britain? And two, would the role of the British in an initial assault be scaled back?

Rumsfeld: This is a matter that most of the senior officials in the government discuss with the U.K. on a daily or every- other-day basis. And I had a good visit with the Minister of Defense of the U.K. about an hour ago. Their situation is distinctive to their country, and they have a government that deals with a parliament in their way, distinctive way. And what will ultimately be decided is unclear as to their role; that is to say, their role in the event that a decision is made to use force. There's the second issue of their role in a post- Saddam Hussein reconstruction process or stabilization process, which would be a different matter. And I think until we know what the resolution is, we won't know the answer as to what their role will be and to the extent they're able to participate in the event the President decides to use force, that would obviously be welcomed. To the extent they're not, there are workarounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it.

Q: We would consider going to war without our closest ally, then?

Rumsfeld: That is an issue that the President will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume. Yes?
 
#8
What a cnut. His master is even more of a cnut for letting huim speak out in this way because now they all, except Robin Cook, look like cnuts!
 
#9
Cuddles said:
What a cnut. His master is even more of a cnut for letting huim speak out in this way because now they all, except Robin Cook, look like cnuts!
TCB(lair) is nothing but a figurehead keeping the seat warm before stakeing claim to a backbench - or parkbench!

I doubt very much that TCH has a future in TCB(rown)'s next cabinet, so is getting in a cheap shot before he disappears into obscurity.
 
#10
Cuddles, unfortunately (with the exception of one or two) the Tories are no better, having voted for the conflict also.
 
#11
Fallschirmmongsturm said:
Cuddles, unfortunately (with the exception of one or two) the Tories are no better, having voted for the conflict also.
All those that voted for the invasion of Iraq must share equal responsibility for the wrong decision. However, the Blair government also have to should the responsibility for the decision making as regards to the analysis and prosecution of the war. Big difference!
 
#12
From the Guardian article:

QUOTE:

Giving the most frank assessment of the post-war planning, Mr Hoon, admits that "we didn't plan for the right sort of aftermath".

UNQUOTE

Begs the question - just what kind of aftermath were you planning for?

F*ck off Hoon, the "planning" that you refer to was non existant. I have never before played a part in such a disorganised cluster that left military commanders having to work off the back of a fag packet for the aftermath, because there was no "framework" - plan, call it, what you will.

Instead, the British military, played catchup to an American inspired nation reshaping that was made up in realtime. This wouldn't have been quite so bad, bar the fact, that unlike the British government, the US does at least give their' forces the resources that are needed. You send soldiers to an expected chemical war without even enough kit to keep us all alive should it happen, God help the Iraqis.
 
#13
The post-Bliar repositioning has begun. Hoon is getting off to an early wriggling start.

Broon will denounce the "cult of personality" at the next People's Congress.....

Meanwhile, we have a situation in which approximately 150 military personnel have died in a pointless and failed Middle Eastern attack and occupation, executed without thought for the consequences...." a serious failure in exercising judgement, responsibility and prudence". The Prime Minister is on the verge of leaving office, his reputation in tatters and former colleagues queuing up to stick the knife in, with the majority of the public wanting him out.

Israel, not the UK. The main difference is that the Israelis have had a proper inquiry into their war. No wonder Bliar didn't want one.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top