Thread: War inquiry

He voted for it so he should also be accountable IMO


Reuters

The majority of the British public believes Prime Minister Gordon Brown should share the blame for the Iraq war with his predecessor Tony Blair, according to a survey on Wednesday.


The ComRes poll for The Independent newspaper found 60 percent of 1,001 adults questioned agreed Brown should share responsibility with Blair, while 34 percent disagreed.

Just over half of Labour supporters agreed, compared with 68 percent of Conservative voters.

Brown, Chancellor at the time of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion, is due to give evidence to a public inquiry into the Iraq war before an election due by June, a move commentators say could damage Labour at the ballot box.

The decision to go to war has been most associated with Blair. The most controversial episode of his 10-year premiership, the war sapped support for Blair and his party.

But Brown faces criticism for decisions on defence spending which critics say have hampered British operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The poll also found 37 percent of those questioned between January 29 and 31 believed Blair should be put on trial for going to war in Iraq

The remits of this enquiry are 'not to punish anyone but to learn lessons for the future'

What kind of lessons are they talking about? 'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have.

"'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?"

We had all the rationales necessary with Hussain's multiple cease-fire violations in the interim years. There was no PEACE TREATY. It was a cease-fire. Didn't need smoking guns to know that Chemical Ali made a living by gassing folks and would do so again just as soon as they'd received their beautifully contrived good housekeeping inspection certification.

Only those who are willfully pedantic and dissembling pursued otherwise, i.e. every single fcuking soul who'd NEVER, EVER lift a finger against injustice nor defend themselves when faced with robbers in their midst. I'm sure you can think of a few...

"Damning"? Well damn those governments for not going to war earlier and, instead, wallowing with the do-gooders who mis-managed oil-for-food while letting that unconscionable fcuk continue slaughtering Iraqis.

Or just do yourselves and everybody else a favor, abolish your armed services and sign a pre-emptive surrender treaty with the rest of mankind to have at you at their discretion.

Oh! And get those damned stuffed piggies off your desks lest you offend somebody irrelevant to any useful purpose.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by S-2

"'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?"

We had all the rationales necessary with Hussain's multiple cease-fire violations in the interim years. There was no PEACE TREATY. It was a cease-fire. Didn't need smoking guns to know that Chemical Ali made a living by gassing folks and would do so again just as soon as they'd received their beautifully contrived good housekeeping inspection certification.

Only those who are willfully pedantic and dissembling pursued otherwise, i.e. every single fcuking soul who'd NEVER, EVER lift a finger against injustice nor defend themselves when faced with robbers in their midst. I'm sure you can think of a few...

"Damning"? Well damn those governments for not going to war earlier and, instead, wallowing with the do-gooders who mis-managed oil-for-food while letting that unconscionable fcuk continue slaughtering Iraqis.

Or just do yourselves and everybody else a favor, abolish your armed services and sign a pre-emptive surrender treaty with the rest of mankind to have at you at their discretion.

Oh! And get those damned stuffed piggies off your desks lest you offend somebody irrelevant to any useful purpose.

Thanks.

Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?

"Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?"

Zara, my dear, what would you call the below comment by you?

"'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have."

Can I presume that you've just called a former and present P.M.- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cauliflowers from the above comment?

Is that your idea of "nicely disagree"[ing] or do you reserve your unvarnished venom only for those not likely to directly reply?

Please clear this matter for me, if you don't mind? I'll be eternally grateful. Thank you ever so much beforehand for this consideration.

Originally Posted by S-2

"Can you not just nicely disagree with someone? Is it really necessary to insult them too?"

Zara, my dear, what would you call the below comment by you?

"'Dont elect a bunch of cauliflowers to run your country'?

Blair and Brown will get away with it, like they always have."

Can I presume that you've just called a former and present P.M.- Tony Blair and Gordon Brown cauliflowers from the above comment?

Is that your idea of "nicely disagree"[ing] or do you reserve your unvarnished venom only for those not likely to directly reply?

Please clear this matter for me, if you don't mind? I'll be eternally grateful. Thank you ever so much beforehand for this consideration.

Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise.

"Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise."

And when I see that magnanimous display of generous mannerisms I'll do the same for you. Or you may presume me his surrogate and offer your apologies now...humbly.

Or you can keep slagging him and Brown without any basis other than your instinctive coarse dislike and I'll do you one better. I at least couch my disdain in some rationale.

You? Nothing but invective.

You called the former and current prime ministers of a major nation "cauliflowers". Now I haven't witnessed G. Brown before Parliament's questioning sessions but I have seen Blair at work.

Let me suggest this-were you to do so before him, he'd quite rightfully rip your pea-sized intellect to SHREDS before your eyes and we'd see you melt like an ice cube in the hot Iraqi sun. Or turn to tears. Deservingly so.

He is an intellectual giant in comparison to you-eloquent, forthright, and possessing far greater decorum than you might possibly muster only in your wildest dreams.

I'm a poor substitute but should you persist in mindlessly lashing those who won't be lashing back, I'll stand their stead to the best of my abilities to unseat your pathetic drivel.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by zara

Ill tell you what, next time Tony Blair logs into WAB, ill personally apologise.

Your discriminating against G/Brown huh :P

For you S2. Think this might help.

"For you S2. Think this might help."

And for you, lovely Zara, with my best wishes

Love, kisses, and peace...

Stay away from the vegetables and I'll stay away from you...

I must admit ,i have always found this person to be a bully ,he overides proper advice with arrogance ,he was the same when he was involved in union disputes and matters , now what is it he reminds me of , ahh yes a caulliflower comes to mind


Reuters


Former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw denied on Monday he had ignored legal advice that the 2003 invasion of Iraq would be illegal without specific U.N. authorisation.

Giving evidence for the second time in a month to the Iraq Inquiry, Straw said the advice from top lawyers at the Foreign Office had been "contradictory" and that the final decision on the legality of war lay with the Attorney General.

Two weeks ago, the inquiry heard from Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office until 2006, who said he believed there was no legal basis for military action without a second U.N resolution.

Declassified documents showed that Wood had written a memo to Straw in January 2003 that using force without the U.N. Security Council's authorisation would be a "crime of aggression."

It followed a meeting between Straw and U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney which concluded Britain "would be OK" with taking military action without a further resolution.

Straw wrote back to Wood saying he rejected his advice.

"Far from ignoring this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care, and gave it the serious attention it deserved," Straw said in a statement to the inquiry.

"So much so that I thought I owed him a formal and personal written response, rather than simply having a conversation with him."

Straw said Wood had been wrong to say there was no doubt that military action was illegal as there contrary views, as he said the legal adviser had acknowledged in a letter to the Attorney General the month before.

"The legal advice he offered was contradictory and I think I was entitled to raise that," Straw said.

Straw also told the inquiry team that negotiations for the first U.N. resolution would not have taken so long if Britain and the United States had not sought to make it clear that further authorisation was needed.

Straw, now Justice Secretary, also defended the decision not to give the cabinet the full details of the advice of the then Attorney General, who had wanted to say that the war was lawful but the arguments were finely balanced.

Straw said ministers would have been aware of the doubts because of arguments being waged in the media.

However, Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said Straw had broken the ministerial code over the issue, had misled parliament and should resign.

"It's absolutely ridiculous that Jack Straw, the secretary of state for justice, the minister in charge of the legal system, should suggest that ministers should get their legal advice from newspapers," Davey told BBC radio.

In his earlier testimony, Straw said that British involvement in the war would have been impossible had he decided to oppose it, such were the divisions in the Labour Party and the government.

He said he had never wanted war but the government had made "the best judgements we could have done in the circumstances.