UK Iraq policy a rank disaster

#2
...the picture doesn't look any prettier.
 
#4
This part interested me:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6128630.stm

Mr Ross quit the Foreign Office after giving evidence to 2004's Butler inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

His Butler testimony concluded that the invasion had been unlawful, he told the MPs in a separate, written submission. It also accused the government of misleading the public over the threat posed by Saddam, and of failing to consider alternatives to military action.

He said he had been advised by a lawyer that revealing the contents of his testimony would leave him in breach of the Official Secrets Act.

He was asked to hand over a copy of the document to the committee clerk by Labour MP Andrew Mackinlay, who assured him it would be covered by Parliamentary privilege.

Mr Ross said he would be "happy" to do so but the clerk later said the document was still in the ex-diplomat's possession.

Mr Mackinlay later told the BBC News website he believed the document should be made public, although it would be up to the committee to vote on the issue.

"There is a world of difference between matters of national security and what might be politically sensitive," he added.
Yet another smoking gun with Bliar's prints all over it? :twisted:
 
#5
From the same article;

On Iraq, he said the measure of success in foreign policy should be "minimisation of suffering" and "if that is your measure, our policy has been a rank disaster in the last few years in terms of blood shed".

Minimisation of suffering, my heart sank when I read this. Wise, wise words. Anyone touched by war, either soldier or civilian would surely agree with these words. We can't have an enquiry now because it might upset the troops, oh, and it might upset the last few months of Blair's rank leadership.
 
#6
When will a future Opposition Day debate be offered up for another Iraq inquiry vote??? Perhaps the result will be slightly different after this intervention and after some critical Congressional questioning. :twisted:
 
#7
MrPVRd said:
When will a future Opposition Day debate be offered up for another Iraq inquiry vote??? Perhaps the result will be slightly different after this intervention and after some critical Congressional questioning. :twisted:
Hmmmmmmm

Tell me again, Just why did rebel Labour MPs vote WITH the government and stop the inquiry from happening???
 
#8
Hmmmmmmm

Tell me again, Just why did rebel Labour MPs vote WITH the government and stop the inquiry from happening???
There will be an inquiry in due course and it grows closer with each passing day, as the US embark on a very public U-turn in policy with a lot of the brown stuff flying around in the direction of those involved in Iraq.

There was an interesting evidence session in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday. One of the draft "dodgy dossiers" (remember those) penned by a spin-doctor and ex-Mirror hack by the name of John Williams is still classified Secret and has not been released despite FoI requests (can't be long before it is leaked anyway :D ). This can of worms has quite a few juicy ones left in it. :twisted:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200611130062
 
#9
Blair's plan is obviously to have the inquiry when he has left office and Br00n can wipe his hands of it, but the longer Blair hangs on the more damage he does. Double edged sword really. Difficult to see how Br00n can claim innocence, he suported the war all along. I am sure he will try though.
 
#10
I consider that the ' "politicisation" of the diplomatic service' and that now we have had questionable National Elections in mainland UK as the ywo disgraceful matters that must be rememberd as 'Blairs Legacy'.
john
As for the 'promotion depended on agreeing with ministers, most specifically Mr Blair.' words fail me. The Brit Civil Service was one of the cuntries Greatest Assests.
 
#11
"UK Iraq policy a rank disaster"

Thanks a lot for pointing that out to us, BBC. I'm pretty sure it escaped everbody's attention.
 
#12
Err Crabby, it was a high ranking former diplomat who said it. one of those who did not get on because he was off message at the time. BBC are just reporting how the diplomatic service has been politicised along with the rest of civil service and the intelligence service and the attorney general.

A high ranking British diplomat, who quit over the war with Iraq, has called policy in the region a "rank disaster".
Carne Ross told MPs the intelligence presented to the public about weapons of mass destruction was "manipulated".

He also added that "the proper legal advice from the Foreign office on the legality of the war was ignored".
 
#13
MrPVRd said:
Hmmmmmmm

Tell me again, Just why did rebel Labour MPs vote WITH the government and stop the inquiry from happening???
There will be an inquiry in due course and it grows closer with each passing day, as the US embark on a very public U-turn in policy with a lot of the brown stuff flying around in the direction of those involved in Iraq.

There was an interesting evidence session in front of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee yesterday. One of the draft "dodgy dossiers" (remember those) penned by a spin-doctor and ex-Mirror hack by the name of John Williams is still classified Secret and has not been released despite FoI requests (can't be long before it is leaked anyway :D ). This can of worms has quite a few juicy ones left in it. :twisted:

http://www.newstatesman.com/200611130062
Exactly which dodgy dossier is this - is it the one signed off by the JOINT Intelligence Committee, the ones endorsed by the Intelligence services???


Oh, and since You don't apparently know why rebel Labour MPs who were to support the early day motion actually didn't, I'll tell You. It was because the Tories have begun to play party politics and supported said motion when they were supposedly wholeheartedly for the war
 
#14
Sven said:
Oh, and since You don't apparently know why rebel Labour MPs who were to support the early day motion actually didn't, I'll tell You. It was because the Tories have begun to play party politics and supported said motion when they were supposedly wholeheartedly for the war
. . . and I have heard several of them say that when they were wholeheartedly FOR, they were busy believing the porkies peddled by B'liar.
That they've changed their minds since then is hardly an act f treachery, more like a blinding glimpse of the bleedin' obvious. If they're to be slagged for anything, it is for not waking up sooner.

I was f*cking certain it was a put-up job well before march 18 2003 - and I didn't need access to classified material to figure it out!! B'liar and Dubya were strutting the stage like a right pair of Scallies. They might as well have been shouting "'Ey, Saddam - we're gonna rob your 'ouse, us!!"

And if Tone has got more material stached away that should have seen the light earlier - I would not be one bit surprised: the little sh1t is such a stranger to the truth I wonder if he even knows who he really is from day to day. :x :x :x :x :x
 
#15
It really is beyond my understanding why any Politician 'Bare Face' lies, when they must know the facts will come out sooner or later.
The 'Tonkin' incedent that led to the 'Exspansion' of Nam being a classic case.
Bush/Blair must have know that there Lies would soon be exposed. Is their contempt for the World such that the truely believe they are unaccountable.
john
Sadam thought he answered to no one. Now he faces the Rope for relatively,' Minor' crimes, a few Hundred.
What is the penalty for a War of Agression ?
Oh and please no Yanks surfaceing saying 'Well just try cum and get him.'
Ya'll give him up.
 
#16
jonwilly said:
It really is beyond my understanding why any Politician 'Bare Face' lies when they must know the facts will come out sooner or later.
The 'Tonkin' incedent that led to the 'Exspansion' of Nam being a classic case.
Bush/Blair must have know that there Lies would soon be exposed. Is their contempt for the World such that the trueky believe they are unaccountable.
john
Sadam thought he answered to no one. Now he faces the Rope for relatively,' Minor' crimes, a few Hundred.
What is the penalty for a War of Agression ?
Oh and please no Yanks surfaceing saying 'Well just try cum and get him.'
Ya'll give him up.
So they must be bare faced lies supported wholeheartedly by certain members of the military. For instance the crews of the vessels suypposedly attacked in the Bay of Tonkin - or for that matter the officers of the Conquerer when their submarines logbook "disappeared".

Then of course You have the connievence of the intelligence services in agreeing the intelligence these bare faced liars use to back up their claims.

If the politicians have scammed us so many times it MUST have been with the direct knowledge and aquiesence of the VSOs of all the various military agencies
 
#17
jonwilly said:
Bush/Blair must have know that there Lies would soon be exposed. Is their contempt for the World such that the truely believe they are unaccountable.
JW, you don't get it do you: THEY don't think they are lying.
The pair of them have long since moved into a place where what they believe is more important than any amount of evidence.
The only people they are fooling these days, are themselves.
 
#18
Sven said:
If the politicians have scammed us so many times it MUST have been with the direct knowledge and aquiesence of the VSOs of all the various military agencies
You have not been paying attention, the FCO, MoD, CoC, Mi5 etc have become heavily politicized under this Government (a process that started under the Tories), they supply the information and standpoint that Tony wants not what reality indicates.

If they don’t they find their careers wrecked; as the ONLY time this Government really applies its self it is to vendetta.
 
#19
Oh Yes as I was told as a kid
You can fool some of the people all of the time. (Sven)
You can Fool some of the people most of the time.
But you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
john
Ya means when I think I'm a good guy, I reall am a (expletive delted)
 
#20
Still don't know what happened to our independence. When the Baker review on Iraq is heard in a few weeks time Bush will decide how to proceed. If Baker recommends talking to Iran and Syria ( the evil ones) Bush will probably decline. At which point Cameron will finally have his opportunity to take a different line on Iraq by backing Baker because Blair will have to back his boss man Bush. Can anyone explain why can we not have our own debate about Iraq? Why is future British policy dictated by Bush? Why is Cameron not confident to establish his own policy on Iraq instead of waiting for the way ahead according to Baker? Blair has stifled all remnants of an independent breathing democracy here. We may as well fire all the foreign office mandarins they have no voice anymore.
 

Top